Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Scottish Business School

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the recent relationships between her Department and the Scottish Business School.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): There is no formal relationship between my Department and the Scottish Business School, but the three universities concerned in its programme of work are in touch with the University Grants Committee. The quinquennial settlement provides for 2,927 full-time and part-time students by 1976–77.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she confirm that at long last the Scottish Business School has got its administration sorted out and that we have one clear line of authority, after two or three wasted years?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am delighted that the Scottish Business School is now off to a good start, and I hope that it will continue.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: In view of the lack of formal relationships between the Minister's Department and the Scottish Education Department, is it not high time for a Royal Commission to investigate education in the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. It was not a formal relationship between my Department and the Scottish Business School. It comes under the University Grants

Committee, which has given what I hope will be thought to be a good quinquennial settlement.

Secondary Education (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to announce a decision on the reorganisation of secondary education in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): My right hon. Friend approved in July some of the proposals to reorganise secondary education in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Because the desired transfer of Newcastle Church of England Secondary School did not accord with Section 16 of the Education Act 1944 the local education authority was asked to reconsider the other related proposals. We are awaiting a reply.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that even the proposals that were approved in July—or parts of them—seem to be held up because of a shortage of steel? Is he also aware that parents and teachers are utterly fed up with the Staffordshire County Council and the Department not being able to find a solution to the Church of England school problem, thereby facilitating the reorganisation of secondary education in my constituency?

Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first point about a shortage of steel, but I assure him that discussions are taking place between the local authority and my Department.

Arts Council

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the for Education and Science whether it remains the policy of the Government that the Arts Council should not be subject to ministerial influence.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The Arts Council will, of course, continue to take independent decisions within its field. Its charter requires it to advise and co-operate with the Government, and Ministers will continue to discuss with the council its needs for


resources and other matters of common concern.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is a pleasure to be able to question the Minister responsible for the arts across the Floor of the Chamber? Will he further recognise that while he occupies his present position he should exercise a self-denying ordinance on the question of public criticism of the arts? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Arts Council would not be doing its job properly if it were not sometimes to risk a little money on what have been called "dotty experiments".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. May I extend the same to him on his appointment? I also extend the gratitude of the House to his predecessor, who made such a notable contribution to the arts in the House.
The Arts Council must take its own decisions—but I might be considered an expert on "dotty experiments".

Mr. Robert Cooke: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and associate myself with the remarks made about the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Will my hon. Friend continue to be in close touch with the Arts Council, reflecting the views of the elected representatives of the people in this House so that the council can make sure that it reflects the interests of the people at large, particularly in provincial emphasis in its activities?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind congratulations. I assure him that I am most willing to receive Members from any part of the House to share ideas on the arts, as I regard the arts as a community of interest in which we all participate.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will increase the grant to the Arts Council.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Under the present triennial arrangements the Arts Council has had an indication of the maximum size of its grant, subject to parliamentary approval and to revaluation, for the years 1974–75 and 1975–76. In the new year

I hope to be able to give the council, subject to the same qualification, a further indication, extending, for planning purposes, to 1976–77.

Mrs. Short: That is a long answer which does not say very much. May I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to two areas where there is a need for increased financial help? First, theatres that are trying to carry out improvements and extensions need help because of the high costs of building materials and steel, which have doubled in price in the past year. Secondly, the declining film industry, which is one of the best in the world, needs a shot in the arm from the hon. Gentleman. Will he assure us that he will look urgently at these two matters?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. The responsibility for giving grants to individual branches of the arts is with the Arts Council. If the hon. Lady will come to see me at Belgrave Square we can have a full discussion.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my hon. Friend remember that although the Government have given twice as much to the arts as did the Labour Government we still give only the same amount as does the city of Munich? Will he treat this matter as top priority?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I cerainly shall. We are making progress. We are, in those immortal words, "on our way".

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in making allocations to the Arts Council he must take into account the considerable inflation that has occurred under this Government? Does he agree that the needs of the Arts Council in the immediate future are likely to amount to about £20 million?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The grants to the Arts Council are made at constant prices and are therefore revised in accordance with the change in the value of money.

Careers Education

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the report on Careers Education in Schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: The report was published on 16th October and initial reactions have been generally favourable. When all interested parties have had time to study its findings my Department intends to consider with them how further progress in this field can best be achieved.

Mr. Duffy: Is not the Secretary of State aware that in some quarters the situation that the report revealed was described as deplorable? Will she bear that in mind in arriving at her recommendations?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in many schools the situation is far from satisfactory. In some schools the subject is being dealt with excellently and I hope that the practice there will commend itself to others. We are anxious that careers education in schools should receive high priority.

Degrees and Qualifications

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further consideration she has given to the introduction of legislation to stop the granting of bogus education degrees.

Mrs. Thatcher: At present I have no proposals to introduce legislation.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that it really is time that she stopped giving these pathetic answers in this House about lack of action against these bogus degree colleges? Is she also aware that I have a copy of a letter dated 3rd November this year, from the Health Department of New York State, which questions the authenticity of a supposed doctorate of science of someone who has applied for a job in New York State? Is it not time that we saw some action taken against these crooks, who are making vast sums of money in this country, while, at the same time, bringing into total disrepute our education standards? How much longer are they going to get away with it?

Mrs. Thatcher: There has indeed been some action. A complete list is available of genuine degrees and degree equivalents, which has been supplied to all the embassies. The hon. Gentleman's correspondent should have found it very easy to get an answer from the embassy as to the question whether the degree was genuine.

Maintenance Allowances

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will formulate proposals for providing adequate maintenance grants to enable schoolchildren over 15 years of age to continue their education in school without economic hardship; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend does not propose to change the system under which the award of education maintenance allowances has always been confined to children over compulsory school age.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that the refusal of his Department to extend maintenance grants to those who are now at school because of the raising of the school leaving age—with which I fully agree—is causing real hardship? Will he institute another working party, like the 1957 one, to ensure parity between area and area throughout the country and to bring the grants into line with present-day costs?

Mr. Raison: My Department believes that discretionary awards make sense, because local circumstances vary and local authorities are the people best placed to judge them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a number of benefits are available to these children, including family allowances and child tax allowances.

Mr. Cockeram: Does the Minister note the different tone of the Opposition on this occasion, now that we have raised the school leaving age, compared with their attitude when they failed to do so?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has made a fair point.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer this afternoon, refusing the request of my hon. Friend, will only add to the suspicion of people that the interest of the Department in State education is declining? Is he not really saying, "Do not be worried about maintenance grants. Do not be worried about State education. Make a few more sacrifices and send your children to private schools"? But if wives ask their husbands to put in wage claims so as to be able to send their children to private schools, the husbands run the risk of going to gaol.

Mr. Raison: There is no reason at all for the hon Gentleman's assertions.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister seek to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to extend free prescriptions up to the age of 16, without a means test?

Mr. Raison: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's observation will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Student Grants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will consider the introduction of an annual review of student grants, similar to the annual pension review.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. This is being considered as part of the current review of student grants.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State disagree with the view of the vice-chancellors that there is real need among the students?

Mrs. Thatcher: I assume that there will be an increase in student grants. That is why we now have a triennial review and why a number of working parties, with the students, have been investigating the facts for some time.

Mr. Redmond: While she is examining this problem will my right hon. Friend also consider the whole question of parental contribution? Does she agree that the middle income groups now find it most difficult to send sons and daughters to universities, whereas the very poor and the very rich manage it quite easily?

Mrs. Thatcher: That matter also is being considered. The last time we had an interim increase, which was in October, we made substantial improvements in the amount of parental income which was free from assessment for contribution, and that will be very much in our minds in making the new review.

Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Lady solve the student grants problem on the basis of the principle that no student should be denied the opportunity of continuing his or her education because of financial need?

Mrs. Thatcher: We shall continue the student grants negotiations on the basis on which they have been conducted since the Anderson Report. I do not think it is possible suddenly to change to another basis.

Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards allowing national museums and galleries which make admission charges to have a free day without having to increase charges on other days.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is her policy to permit national museums and galleries, after the start of admission charges, to have a free day at their discretion without requiring them to increase charges on other days.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Members of the following measures.
First, I have offered the trustees of the national museums and galleries the opportunity to propose, if they wish, new arrangements for free days. I have said that the Government are prepared to consider applications for a free day each week at any time during the low season or throughout the year, in which case weekends would be excluded. I have also explained that it would be up to the trustees to decide whether to cover the fall in receipts by an extension of the higher charging period or not to do this and to accept a slightly lower level of receipts from their museum charges money.
Secondly, without prejudice to subsequent arrangements for the next quinquennium for museum acquisitions, museums or galleries may opt in 1974–75 to use part or all of the additional resources from charges to supplement acquisition grants. Thirdly, if institutions earn more for charges than the sum estimated the balance will represent additional resources, which they can use without the procedure of a supplementary vote.
Finally, old-age pensioners will be admitted free to the national museums and galleries after charges are introduced.

Mr. Smith: May I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment, and wish him luck on the road which he has chosen to follow? May I also welcome his resolution of the free day problem and the old-age problem, which have caused unnecessary controversy over the last three years? In the same vein, will he make it crystal clear that there will be no budging from his right hon. Friend's pledge, made in the recent debate, that all the money raised by admission charges will go to museums and galleries as a genuine extra without having an adverse effect on the money which they will get from the Government?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for his congratulations. I can give him the unqualified assurance that he requires.

Mr. Archer: May I be the first from the Government side to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and to say how we on these benches will be delighted by his announcement? Does he realise that we are particularly delighted, in view of some of the cynical cries when some of us chose to abstain rather than vote with the Opposition when we were told that this might happen? May we wish my hon. Friend further success in his appointment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I am delighted to be high in his hopes, and I hope that I shall manage to remain there.

Mr. Faulds: May I, Sir, warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his artistic courage and compassion? We have been waiting for some little while for a Minister for the Arts like him. Will he say why he intends that these charges will be involved in the Estimates at all, since they were apparently promised to the museums in our late debate, and this new departmental device—which is what it is—simply gives the Minister an opportunity to rig the estimates?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his remarks. In the last resort, the Government must decide how much of the taxpayers' money can go on various items of expenditure, but I can assure the hon.

Member that the Government will be fair with the institutions, and if the estimate of receipts made in advance of charges proves to be too high an adjustment will be made so that the institutions will not suffer from a guess made in the absence of evidence. The Government will play fair by the institutions on the principle that they can have extra resources in relation to charges.

Mr. Money: May I join in the general welcome to my hon. Friend, and say that those of us on this side who have been deeply interested and concerned in this subject will find his clear and extremely constructive answer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Donald Stewart: You voted for the charges.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) must ask a question concisely.

Mr. Money: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the barrage that is coming across the Chamber. As I said, I welcome my hon. Friend's extremely clear and constructive answer, and I hope that in looking at the question of admissions he will be able to take into account the position of the National Heritage as well as the position of the National Arts-Collection Fund.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am in correspondence with the National Heritage but I cannot hold out hopes in that regard. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I have tried to be as fair as I can on this matter, but I am unable to make any further concessions. The House is always generous when the sun shines.

Mr. Strauss: If the Minister's reply means anything it means that if a museum or gallery wants to have a free day it will have to charge double on at least one other day or surrender to the Treasury the equivalent amount of money that would have been received in charges. Surely that breaches the principle of a free day and reveals that the concession made to the House before is not a concession at all, with these conditions attached.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that. The choice is for the trustees of the museums and galleries. If they


wish to extend the period of double charging they may do so and thus incur no diminution in revenue. If, on the other hand, they prefer to have a free day they are entitled to do so and all they will lose is the hypothetical revenue.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: How much will the Government get in cash from all this nonsense? Would it not be better for the Minister to forget the whole thing?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Government policy is to preserve the principle of charging and at the same time to be as reasonable and flexible as possible in the operation of the principle.

Research Councils

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent it is her intention that the research councils should have superannuation agreements for every employee comparable to those obtaining in the Civil Service following the introduction of the Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme on 1st June 1972; and if she will make a statement on the progress being made in the current negotiations.

Mrs. Thatcher: Superannuation arrangements in the research councils are matters for the councils, but require my approval and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service. Some research council employees are superannuated on the same terms as civil servants and others in other ways. A proposal by the Agricultural Research Council to extend the Civil Service-type arrangements to additional groups of their employees is under consideration, but I cannot at this stage indicate when a conclusion will be reached.

Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a most disappointing reply? Agricultural Research Council employees are under the impression that notwithstanding the extreme delay in making progress with their negotiations there is at least an agreement in principle that they will have a scheme comparable to the Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme. Will the Secretary of State re-examine this question to see that the ARC employees get a scheme as good as that envisaged by the Civil Service in general?

Mrs. Thatcher: The negotiations are continuing. The ARC is preparing a full statement of its case and negotiations are proceeding with the Government Actuary's department to provide costings. However, I shall see whether there is anything we can do to speed up the negotiations.

Mr. Spearing: I welcome the Secretary of State's recent U-turn the matter of superannuation, but is it not about time for the question of comparability of the teachers with the Civil Service also to be considered? Members of Parliament pay about 20 per cent. less of their salary in contributions to get the same benefits as teachers. Is it not about time the apparent differences were looked into and cleared up?

Mrs. Thatcher: The question does not concern teachers' superannuation; it concerns scientists and others who work in the research councils. On that totally different question, the working party will reconvene in January.

Women Medical Students

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has had with the hospital medical schools on their policy with regard to the admission of women medical students.

Mrs. Thatcher: None, but at my request the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has agreed to examine university admissions policies, including those of medical schools, with a view to establishing whether there is any evidence of discrimination on grounds of sex.

Miss Fookes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will she impress upon the committee the need that merit only should be taken into consideration? Will she also consider the position in respect of the entry of women into veterinary training, where I have clear evidence of discrimination?

Mrs. Thatcher: I shall certainly impress upon the committee the need which my hon. Friend points out. If she has any evidence about veterinary training I shall gladly consider it.

Mr. William Hamilton: In the Government's consultation document on equal opportunities did the Secretary of State


not undertake to consult the UGC about this very matter? Will she say what consultations have taken place up to now, when they will be completed, and what steps she will take with universities which might defy her instructions to cease discrimination?

Mrs. Thatcher: As a result of that undertaking a specific request went to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to look into this matter, which it is now doing.

Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the admission of women to medical schools on the basis of quotas or special examination results is totally wrong, and totally at variance with the principles that we are trying to enforce elsewhere on sex discrimination? Can she not at least say that now?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have said that at this Dispatch Box before, and I repeat it. I agree with the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) that admission should be on the basis of ability.

London Teachers

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she next expects to meet representatives of London teachers.

Mrs. Thatcher: Arrangements have been made for representatives of the London Head Teachers' Association to meet my noble Friend Lord Sandford on 16th January.

Mr. Molloy: Ought not the Secretary of State to see all the teachers' associations in London to discuss with them the grievous problem of London weighting? Does she not agree that, although it may be argued that teachers' staff problems are no more serious in London than they are in the provinces, the potential difficulties in London ace infinitely greater? The recruitment campaign has proved to be almost useless. One of the things that the Secretary of State can do to encourage an increase in teacher supply in London is to take a realistic look at the London weighting situation.

Mrs. Thatcher: The London weighting situation for teachers and others in the public sector has already been referred to

the Pay Board, on very wide terms of reference. In Ealing—the part of London with which the hon. Member is most concerned—the quota for teachers this term was exceeded by 40.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Secretary of State agree that on the present timetable anything the Pay Board might produce would not be reflected in London classrooms until Easter of the year after next? Does the right hon. Lady not consider that the problem is more urgent than that timetable implies?

Mrs. Thatcher: It is essential to get not only an acceptable solution but a valid one. The Pay Board has been asked to consider a very big problem and it must be given time to do its job properly.

School Building

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest revised estimate of the school building programme for the years 1972–73, 1973–74 and 1974–75.

Mrs. Thatcher: The figure for 1972–73 is £312·3 million, including £75 million as part of the special programme for raising the school leaving age. I hope soon to make an announcement about the resumption of approvals of educational building work. It would be premature to say anything more about the 1973–74 and 1974–75 programmes in advance of that announcement.

Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the provisional figure for 1973–74 is £70 million below the one she has just given for the previous year, and that that is again being cut by 25 per cent. in accordance with her moratorium on approvals? Does she not realise that this is causing great difficulties for local authorities? What increase will she allow in the cost limits when she resumes approvals in January?

Mrs. Thatcher: The previous year—1972–73—included a figure of £75 million for the special programme for the raising of the school leaving age. That has been completed, so it is not surprising that a similar amount is not reflected in the next year's programme. The point about cost limits will be dealt with in the circular which will be going out shortly.

Mr. Burden: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the urgent need for the provision of proper schooling for mentally handicapped children. Will she do all in her power to ensure that the school building programme for these children is neither cut back nor delayed and that this applies especially to the new school at Bobbing, near Sittingbourne, which is urgently needed and which, I understand, is now in jeopardy?

Mrs. Thatcher: I shall certainly examine the point raised by my hon. Friend. We are particularly anxious that this programme, which is relatively small, should have reasonable priority.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Minister not feel the time has now come to come clean and admit that the Government are effectively cutting the school building programme, and that that is their intention? Does she not agree that by delaying the announcement of the approval of schemes, thus ensuring that local authorities cannot proceed for anything from five to nine months, she is effectively cutting the budget for the school building programme? Is this not "kidology" at its best?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. The maximum cut must be three months. That is the period of the moratorium. If local authorities had got on a little more quickly with their programmes more schools would have been started before the moratorium began. The local education authorities are free to start their programmes at the beginning of the financial year. The maximum period of the moratorium is three months.

Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming on the question of the time when she will allow contracts to be placed again? The date was 1st January. Cannot she tell the House that it will be 1st January?

Mrs. Thatcher: The date is 1st January.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady is too ready to blame local authorities for her own shortcomings. When she talks about slowness in preparing building programmes, does she not recall a certain little difficulty over cost limits which was not met until an Opposition motion was tabled?

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman recalls that cost limits went up by 22 per cent. towards the beginning of the year.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the school building programme for 1974–75.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have not received any such representations apart from routine inquiries from local education authorities, and inquiries about Circular 12/73.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am holding in my hand representations made to her by the Derby and Derbyshire Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations? The letter makes a strong point about the delay which she has reiterated today. Is she aware that the cut-back for 1974–75 will severely hit education authorities such as Derbyshire? Is she further aware that in such areas there is a major problem not only in replacing outdated primary schools but in transferring secondary schools to comprehensive education? Does she accept that she has held up some of these schemes unreasonably in the past?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have received representations about only two projects in Derbyshire. One is a major project, namely, the Pringle Secondary School, Swadlincote, and the other is a minor project at the Findern County Primary School. Those are the only two representations that I have received. I hope that they will soon apply for approval on 1st January.

Exercise Books (Paper Shortage)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ascertain through the inspectorate whether educational standards in England and Wales will be harmed by the shortage of paper for exercise books.

Mr. Raison: As far as I know, local education authorities are not yet encountering any serious difficulties, but I shall keep a close watch on the situation.

Mr. Clark: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that a


northern supplier of paper is on record as saying that it is rationing local education authorities? Will he look into the problem? Does he not agree that a shortage of paper could harm educational standards?

Mr. Raison: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that in the near future there may be difficulties over delays in delivery and increased costs. It may be necessary for authorities to run their stocks low and restrict consumption for a time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep a close watch on the matter.

County and Voluntary Schools

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 (Establishment and discontinuance of county and voluntary schools).

Mrs. Thatcher: The policy remains as outlined in Circular 10/70.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the disquiet over her interpretation of her powers in Section 13? Is her policy not designed to make it difficult for any local education authority to implement comprehensive schemes?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. The people who dislike the decisions dislike them because they dislike the policy. I am not here to implement a Socialist education policy.

Mr. Armstrong: Is it not time that the Secretary of State accepted her full responsibility instead of hiding behind separate schemes? Should she not tell the country where she stands on selection and secondary reorganisation?

Mrs. Thatcher: I accept full responsibility. It is open to anyone who claims that his interests are adversely affected by one of my decisions to test the validity of his claim in the courts.

HMS "Conway"

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision she has made in response to the request from the Cheshire County

Council that it should cease to maintain the Nautical Training School, known as HMS "Conway", as an aided school, with effect from 31st August 1974.

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend approved in October the Cheshire Local Education Authority's proposal.

Captain Elliot: Is my hon. Friend aware that when Cheshire County Council gave notice in November 1972 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it wished to cease responsibility for HMS "Conway", the Conway Club considered taking over the school to save it, but was choked off by the Cheshire County Council's demand for a rent of £20,000 per annum, with a review every five years, including a full maintenance lease? Is he further aware that the Cheshire County Council and the British Shipping Federation are joint trustees and jointly appoint the board of management, and were at that time secretly negotiating for the Cheshire County Council to take over the premises for £75,000? Does he know that the premises cost over £500,000—the money being raised by private subscription—and are now worth over £1 million? As the Department of Education and Science is the authority which has jurisdiction over the Conway Trust, did the Department know of the negotiations, and did it approve of them?

Mr. Raison: First, I am advised that the figure mentioned was put forward by the Cheshire County Council during informal discussions with the parents and the Conway Club. It did not constitute a firm offer, nor has it been the subject of a valuation. It was meant to illustrate the amount which rental arrangements for the premises would involve. Second, my right hon. Friend is unaware that discussions of the nature referred to took place between the parties involved. She was not in a position to approve of them or to be a party to them.

Village Schools

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many village schools have been closed during the past five years.

Mr. Raison: Approval has been given to the closure of 595 village schools in England since January 1969.

Mr. Price: Is that not a thoroughly depressing figure? Is the Minister aware that the Warwickshire County Council is closing numerous village schools in the face of the most determined opposition from parents? What is the educational justification for closing village schools? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his Department's policy, in view of the increasing need for nursery education? Are we going to transport three- and four-year-olds miles around the countryside?

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend considers each proposal submitted to her on its merits. She takes account of educational considerations as well as local needs and wishes. She must be satisfied that the resources available will be used wisely. That applies nationally and in Warwickshire.

Sir John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency several first-class village schools have been closed in recent years? Does he accept that the attention that can be given to children at such schools is far better and more valuable than the attention given in much larger schools to which the children now have to be sent? Will my right hon. Friend ask local education authorities to consider educational value rather than administrative convenience when taking action of this sort?

Mr. Raison: I am not aware of the specific cases to which my hon. Friend refers. I can assure him that close attention is given to these matters by my Department.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is it not true, despite exhaustive studies made during the past few decades, that throughout Britain there is a complete absence of any hard evidence in support of the contention that the children in these schools suffer educationally in any way? Does he accept that, although there are problems in such schools, the problems are more than compensated for by the fact that the children receive substantial individual attention?

Mr. Raison: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have considered his second point carefully. However, we must bear in mind that resources can be more usefully applied in some circumstances where schools are merged.

Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to set up an inquiry into the problem and to consider especially the problems of the closure of schools in remote rural areas and areas of outstanding environmental beauty? There are particular problems in such areas, and they are underestimated. Will my hon. Friend's Department consider setting up a committee of inquiry immediately to consider these problems?

Mr. Raison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is taking note of the comments which have been made today.

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of these answers, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Adult Education (Russell Report)

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will detail in the OFFICIAL REPORT the main interests with which she will be discussing the implementation of the Russell Report.

Mrs. Thatcher: The local authority associations and organisations representing the other main providers of adult education, teachers' and youth workers' associations, and representatives of voluntary and other organisations with a major interest in adult education.

Mr. Carter: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will pay particular attention to what the TUC and the trade unions say on this subject? Is it her intention that in future adult education should assume a greater percentage of the total educational budget?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am anxious to do more for adult education because I realise the great benefits that it can confer. I am sorry that the consultative document is not yet out, but I hope that it will be out within the next few weeks. In general, I am in sympathy with the hon Gentleman's wish to do more for adult education.

Miss Fookes: Can my right hon. Friend give an idea of the time scale of those consultations, and when she will be able to give a definite answer?

Mrs. Thatcher: I should think that the consultations will take some time. As my


hon. Friend knows, consultation is a way of life in the education service, and once we consult one body, many more usually wish to come to see us. There will have to be some compromise on this issue, and I think it will take some time

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that many adult education bodies have expressed concern about the ineffectual way in which the findings of the report have been handled? Will she assure the House that there will be no further delay and that the process will be speeded up?

Mrs Thatcher: I think there will be a few weeks' further delay, but I hope that it will not be longer than that.

Medical Research Council (Grant)

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current size of the grant she makes to the Medical Research Council.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Estimates for 1973–74 provide for a grant in aid of about £25½ million from my Department to the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Rhodes: Just what control has the Department over this large sum of money once it has been disbursed? For example, in view of the shambles left behind by the MRC subsequent to the sacking of the director of the multiple sclerosis research unit at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, does the Minister not feel that it is high time she intervened more directly and ascertained whether this £25 million is being spent efficiently? Just where does public accountability come into this matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am advised on the allocation of research budget money by the advisory board for the Medical Research Council, which has on it distinguished scientists, representatives of the Departments and independent members. On the whole, I have accepted its advice and I have every confidence in the way in which the boards of the research councils conduct their affairs.

Part-Time Education

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils are now experiencing part-time education in England and Wales and in Greater London, respectively.

Mr. Raison: As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend does not collect precise information from day to day from local education authorities. The present scale of part-time working does not seem to differ substantially from what was reported earlier this term.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, although he should not collect information from day to day, he should do so occasionally? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to stop claiming that London is better off than anywhere else because of one particular statistic? Will the right hon. Lady investigate the shortage of teachers in particular subjects, which results in thousands of London schoolchildren being sent home every day?

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend naturally takes a very close interest in these matters and will no doubt have noted what has been said. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in no way complacent if there is a single child avoidably having only part-time schooling.

Oral Answers to Questions — CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if, at his next meeting with the TUC and CBI, he will discuss the consequences of the oil supply situation on economic growth.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no immediate plans to meet the TUC and CBI, but at the meeting last week of the National Economic Development Council, at which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the chair, there was a full discussion of the current economic situation and especially the impact of reduced oil supplies. The council has agreed to take stock of the situation on 21st December.

Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister seen the report of last night's speech, in Leeds, made by the President of the CBI, in which he said that in the event of the further threatened January cut-back of oil we shall not keep up full-time working? Does not the Prime Minister think that the issue is now no longer the rate of


economic growth but whether we can avoid heavy loss of output and large-scale lay-offs this winter? What the people need—not to mention pounds sterling—is clear evidence from the Prime Minister that he has appropriate plans and the resolve to implement them.

The Prime Minister: The general agreement on NEDC was that we should aim to achieve the greatest growth commensurate with the fuel supplies that we can obtain. Obviously, the extent to which oil supplies are affected in the coming months may affect growth, but for the present the loss in coal supplies is a far greater threat to our energy resources than is any loss on the oil front.

Mr. Tom King: Has my right hon. Friend read the speech made by Vice-President Ford at his inauguration, in which he said that as he faced Congress he saw not Republicans and Democrats but American faces? In the present oil crisis should not we all, on both sides of the House, look at the interests of the British people as a whole and not make speeches at weekends suggesting that the answer to the crisis is a General Election?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that we should face the energy problem as a nation. I repeat that with the cut-back of 10 per cent. there was general agreement in industry that by economies, both domestic and industrial, we could keep our production going and sustain the rate of growth. If cuts by the oil countries as a whole—and we are affected by Arab and non-Arab countries—become larger there is danger of unemployment and of cut-back in growth, but I repeat that what is affecting us much more than the oil situation is the shortfall in coal supplies.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I recognise that the oil problem has arisen through factors outside the control of this country, unlike certain other things for which we may feel that the Government have a responsibility. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish as a White Paper the report made to him by the "think tank" about two years ago warning of the dangers of an energy crisis?

The Prime Minister: I do not know to which paper the right hon. Gentleman is referring. In any case he knows, as a

former Prime Minister, that the Government never publish minutes that pass between Departments, least of all those which come from the Cabinet Office. The Government have been well aware for a long time of the energy problems that could arise. That is one reason why we have pursued our policy to maintain the level of production of coal—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who allowed it to fall by 50 million tons a year for six years. We were criticised at the time for maintaining the level of coal production at a price which required subsidy. We did that deliberately and gave the commitment of £1,100 million to the industry because we foresaw the problems that might arise.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy we followed was the same as, and as wrong, as that of the Conservative Government in the three years before? Does he recall that closure programme, and can he tell us the name of the then Leader of the Opposition—who, on our closure programme, said that we should be closing pits much faster?

The Prime Minister: I was perfectly prepared to take coal production as an economic form of energy because we were not then confronted with the same problems as we foresaw when we came into office. We have taken the necessary action on coal and nuclear energy, and it was Mr. Gormley himself who said at the beginning of the year that since a commitment had been made to the coal industry it was up to the industry to produce the goods.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister how many times he has met officials of the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his talks with the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with leaders of the NUM; and what further plans he has for talks with the leaders of other major unions.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent meeting with the National Union of Mineworkers.

The Prime Minister: I have met representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers on two occasions recently—on 23rd October and on 28th November. I made a statement to the House on 29th November. I have no immediate plans for further meetings with union leaders.—[Vol. 865, c. 586–98.]

Mr. Strang: Does the Prime Minister agree that whatever happens in the next week or so it is already clear that recent developments on the international oil front will have an enormous effect on the development of the British economy, not to mention the world economy, in 1974? Does it not follow that the major economic problems we now face are different from the situation two months' ago, when the Government published their consultative document on stage 3? Would it not be prudent for the Prime Minister to consider revoking stage 3 and replacing it with a policy designed to meet the current major problems facing the nation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should consider the energy problem from two points of view. There is, first, the question of the quantities required to keep our energy supplies going, and, second, the question of price, which will make its impact on internal costs and prices and also on our balance of payments. As to the cuts in oil supplies, I remind the House that industry believes that not only can it maintain itself through economies but it can also keep the rate of expansion going when the cut amounts to 10 per cent. But the increased price of oil coming in is bound to have an effect on balance of payments and costs in this country. Both these matters only reinforce the need for us to have a counter-inflationary policy. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that stage 3 is too generous in these circumstances and ought to be revised in terms of what it allows, this is something which the Government ought to consider.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the settlement yesterday by the National Union of Public Employees is a proper example of a trade union look-

ing after the interests of low-paid workers, and is an example to the National Union of Mineworkers? Does he agree that there is clear evidence that if the Government give in to the militant demands of the NUM, as expressed by the present make-up of the executive, the moderate element in the executive and the British public will be sold out for a very long time?

The Prime Minister: I was glad to see the decision of which my hon. Friend speaks. So far, 350 settlements have been registered under stage 3, covering 1½ million employees, but that does not include the settlement to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the seriousness of the situation about which I recently wrote to him, namely, that 30 men a week—skilled men who cannot be replaced—are leaving the five Warwickshire pits? Can he not understand that even if they received the present wage increase they would still be earning between £10 and £15 less than workers in surrounding factories? If the energy situation is as serious as he says, how can we afford to go on losing men of that calibre?

The Prime Minister: The rate of recruitment to the industry has remained steady, and 57 per cent. of those who are being recruited are miners returning to the mines. I have already given the House the position comparing miners after stage 3 with workers in the manufacturing industry after stage 3. If both miners and manufacturing industry workers accept the offers made under stage 3, the miners in comparison will be in a better position than they were after Wilberforce. This means that, compared with the beginning of 1972, when the Wilberforce proposals appeared, there is now a greater attraction to mining than to manufacturing industry.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Prime Minister confirm the fact that the package offered to the miners places them 8 per cent. above the level of wages in the manufacturing industry, and that it will not be to their benefit to abandon stage 3 and to return to leapfrogging?

The Prime Minister: That is the case. There can be no benefit to miners in trying to attract more people to the industry if they get an award outside stage 3 which


breaks stage 3 and merely leads to every other union leader being forced to make a claim equal to that of the miners'. We went through all this in 1972. This is why, in discussions with the CBI and TUC, we have tried to find a more sensible way of handling these affairs.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the fact that even if the stage 3 settlement is accepted by the miners, the highest-paid miner will have a basic take-home pay of less than £40 a week? In those circumstances, those miners need no lectures on patriotism from Lord Hailsham or anybody else. They could have held the country to ransom from 1945 onwards, but they did not do so. Whom does the Prime Minister believe to be the more patriotic section of the community—the miners or the property speculators?

The Prime Minister: The position in the manufacturing industry is as I have given it. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) wishes only to refer to basic rates.

Mr. Hamilton: Of course.

The Prime Minister: It is not a matter of saying "Of course". It is earnings, together with other benefits which miners receive, that in fairness have to be compared to the rest of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Goodhew: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the meeting on 20th October of the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions, at which the mineworkers, the engineers, the train drivers and the power supply workers got together to plan a strike of 5 million people in the New Year, with a view to wrecking stage 3, bringing down the Government, and no doubt bringing about chaos? Will the Prime Minister go on television and tell the people of this country that they are being duped by these Communists, who have no interests in this country whatever?

The Prime Minister: In all my contacts with the TUC, the mineworkers and other unions leaders, I have emphasised that this policy is in the interests of the country and that the law and the pay code have been approved by Parliament. Therefore, I have asked that wage arrangements should be made within

that code. I have already told the House and the country that certain remarks by miners' leaders to the effect that they wanted to bring down the Government have been withdrawn. Naturally, I accept that. I hope that no union or combination of unions would ever act with that motive. I do not think the British parliamentary system or the British nation would be prepared to tolerate that situation.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Prime Minister aware that stage 3 was revised in the warm glow of a rather hot summer, which is a rare phenomenon in this country? Does he not think it time that the Government reviewed this policy, in view of the fact that we shall have a hard winter? Since the situation in the mining industry is that coal cannot be produced to keep power stations active, will this not mean that in many homes Christmas dinners will not be cooked?

The Prime Minister: If the overtime ban were to be removed at the meeting on Thursday the coal could immediately be produced to get our power stations going, to give the industry the electricity and power it requires, thus avoiding increasing unemployment, which otherwise will be inescapable. If the hon. Gentleman wants stage 3 to be reviewed, I ask the House to consider what its basis will be. The offer to the miners is 13 per cent., and the most we believe we can get as a growth rate for this country in the forthcoming period is between 3½ per cent. and 4 per cent. The House must consider how a figure of this kind can be justified in terms of increase in growth, and must accept the fact that the miners are being put in a special position. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that as a result of the cut-backs in industry it is not possible to get that growth, the logical conclusion is that there ought to be a cut-back in the facilities of stage 3.

Mr. Rost: Is the Prime Minister aware that the majority of people believe that trade union leaders have done quite enough talking and that if the country is to survive we need less talk and a little more concern for the national interest?

Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Gentleman volunteer to go down a mine and do some overtime?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the great majority of trade union leaders want to do what is best in the national interest. At the meetings that I have with them I shall continue to give them the fullest information about the national economy and the international economic situation, and ask for their co-operation with the employers in this position.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that in order to save this country the miners should work overtime? When considering package deals, will he bear in mind that mining is probably the most dangerous occupation in this or any country? In balancing the scales of his economics, will he put on them on behalf of the miners the thousands who die from pneumoconiosis and the thousands who are injured in the collieries? Will he put all those matters in the scales before coming to a decision not that 13 per cent. has been offered—because we on this side consider that wage offers are based on basic wages—but that other deals contained in the package have also been offered to other workers in British industry? Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that the miners are a special case and that stage 3 is in a hopeless position? Will he reconsider the position and give the miners their just rewards?

The Prime Minister: Because of the points listed by the hon. Gentleman, the scale of the offer made to the miners by the National Coal Board is very much greater than can be claimed by most other groups in the community. The plain fact is that the trade union movement—I fully accept its problems—has never yet been able to give any indication that it could establish priorities between the claims of different unions. Therefore, it cannot face a situation in which one group is allowed to have a special place and others cannot claim similar treatment, because it knows full well that as soon as one position is established everybody else claims the right to make exactly the same response.

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the ASLEF dispute.
I have to inform the House that no agreement was reached at yesterday's meeting between British Rail, ASLEF, the National Union of Ralwaymen and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. ASLEF refused to lift its threat of action or to refer the issues in dispute to the next stage of the industry's agreed procedure. On learning that this remained ASLEF's position after its executive meeting this morning. I thought it right to invite it to see me immediately. I have also discussed the situation with the Chairman of British Rail and with the other unions.
At our meeting I impressed upon the ASLEF executive the extreme seriousness of the threatened action and its consequences for the community. The action proposed includes general non-co-operation, bans on overtime, rest day and Sunday working, and there seems little doubt that this could lead to a progressive and rapid breakdown of both passenger and freight services.
The travelling public will be immediately affected and have to face considerable hardship. This is happening in the fortnight before Christmas and at a time when, because of the petrol shortage, many people are switching to rail in order to travel.
The current shortage of energy supplies already poses a most serious threat to our prospects for economic growth, to our living standards and to employment. The ASLEF action will materially worsen the position.
Against this background, I urged the executive to reconsider its decision and to seek to resolve its remaining differences with British Rail and the other unions. I told it that I believed the proper course for it, in the national interest, was to refer any outstanding issues on restructuring to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the industry's jointly established arbitration machinery which is the next stage of its procedure, particularly since ASLEF had recently reached agreement with British Rail and the other unions on the appointment of a new independent chairman to the Tribunal, who must clearly be acceptable to it.
The executive undertook to reconsider its decision in the light of what I had to say and promised to let me know the outcome. I sincerely hope that it will call off its industrial action.

Mr. Prentice: Is the House to understand from the last sentence of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman expects to be in touch with the ASLEF executive later today? We would welcome more information on that point. We would also naturally ask him to make a further statement to the House either this evening or, at the latest, tomorrow on how the situation has developed.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will always have our good will as long as he pursues the rôle of peace maker, which is traditional to his office, and avoids the confrontation techniques that have characterised Government policy in these spheres so much in the last three years? Will he assure the House that he is not contemplating any use of the procedures under the Industrial Relations Act? If he were to do that, I hope that he would take our advice that this would be the most counter-productive action he could take.
I do not think that many hon. Members will want to pursue the merits of the argument at this critical moment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to all the parties involved that there is deep appreciation in this House of the natural anxieties of skilled and experienced railwaymen who have seen their relative position decline over the years and that they have a case that needs to be examined. On the other hand, we would expect them to take serious account of the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week and to recognise that the industrial action that they have in mind, which would cause hardship to the travelling public and to their fellow workers, would be particularly damaging at this moment, first, because of the fuel situation, which means that a transport disclocation would have a disproportionate effect on other people's jobs, and, secondly, because of the Christmas period when a large number of families are hoping to be reunited. We hope that the ASLEF executive and membership will bear these points in mind.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
On the first point, the ASLEF executive said that it would consider what I have said and inform me of its decision. I understand that it was to meet at 3 o'clock. I do not know what the result

of that meeting will be. As at present advised, it probably will not be helpful to the House for me to make another statement. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said and will consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If such an occasion seemed to be right and seemed to warrant my making a statement, I should do so, but I rather doubt that it will.
I have made it perfectly dear that I believe that the right course is to continue with the industry's negotiating procedures and to go to arbitration. That remains my position. I told the ASLEF executive that many people would find it very hard to understand why it did not feel able to follow that course. I was informed that it did not believe that it could keep control of its members and lead them into such a situation. I replied that I believed that there were times in all our lives when we have to lead and do our best in what we believe to be the national interest and I very much hoped that it would seek to lead its members. If it did, I believe that it would get their backing. I had to say that the executive obviously knew more about its members than I did, but I felt that this was a time for leadership.
I am not contemplating using the Industrial Relations Act, for the reason that I have made clear—namely, that the normal procedures in the industry have not yet been completed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the skill and experience of train drivers. I know that they feel that they have in some way been rather harshly treated compared with others and, equally, that the present restructuring negotiations have been going on for a very long time. They feel frustrated about it. But the other unions seem to be in close agreement, and, in that situation, I very much hope that they will still reconsider their decision.

Mr. Fry: Is it not ironic that the present ASLEF action follows so soon after the Government's clear statement of confidence in the future of British Rail? Furthermore, is it surprising in the circumstances if those who are responsible for the movement of freight are thinking more closely about transferring important goods to rail if such actions continue in the future?

Mr. Whitelaw: I took the opportunity to point out to the ASLEF executive members that as a result of our energy problems they were undoubtedly presented with considerable opportunities for the railways in the future. I also pointed out to them the trust which the Government had put into the railways by the investment that they were making. I said that I believed that it would be a tragedy in the circumstances if this were thrown away by action such as they contemplate. I made that clear to them.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that if the railwaymen went to arbitration the outcome of the negotiations would be over and above phase 3?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be very unwise for me to speculate on a hypothetical situation. I believe that the right course now is to continue with the procedures and to go to arbitration on the whole of the British Railways restructuring proposals.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have the support of the House if I move on now.

BILLS PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. Secretary Pym, supported by Mr. James Prior, Mr. David Howell, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Peter Mills presented a Bill to provide that the number of persons who may hold appointments under Section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 shall be increased to fifteen of whom not more than eleven may be members of the Northern Ireland Executive appointed in accordance with this Act: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING EQUALITY BILL

Mr. Giles Radice, supported by Mr. James Johnson, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Ernest Armstrong,

Mr. David Watkins, Mr. John Horam, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Phillip Whitehead and Mr. John Smith presented a Bill to ensure equal access for women and men to all forms of industrial training and day and block release facilities and to all educational institutions: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8th February and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL BILL

Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Ernie Money, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. David Clark, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Frank Judd presented a Bill to give the Secretary of State powers to regulate the types of material used in packaging and to specify that they should be capable of being re-used or re-cycled: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8th February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

RIGHTS OF WOMEN BILL

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to deny facilities of insurance, loan, mortgage, finance, hire purchase or other forms of credit to any person solely on grounds of sex; to provide for continuity of employment of women with rights of reinstatement after confinement; and for purposes connected therewith.
The first part of the Bill deals with a much-neglected area of our employment laws. The rights to re-employment of a woman worker who leaves her job to have a baby are not covered by legislation. Although some agreements have been made in both the public and private sectors, progress towards the achievement of a floor of rights to all women has been lamentably slow. It is for that reason that I seek to introduce legislation to cover the problem.
Women workers are not returning to their jobs after childbirth. Until it is made more attractive for them to do so, the country will continue to lose large numbers of productive workers.
In the typical case, a woman who stops work for several months to have a baby is subject to disadvantages in the following terms. First she has to re-apply to her former employer as though she were starting from scratch. Secondly, if her former employer decides to take her on again, which is problematical, it could be in a different department, on different hours and at different pay. Thirdly, since she is applying afresh she will have lost accrued seniority benefits of pay levels, sick and holiday pay, holiday entitlement and eligibility for a pension scheme. Fourthly, she will also have lost the continuity of employment which is essential before claims can be made under the Redundancy Payments Act and for unfair dismisal under the Industrial Relations Act.
It is therefore made very unattractive for women to seek re-employment after childbirth. It is not only grossly unfair for skilled and experienced women to have their training amount to nothing, but it is also an utter waste of expertise and productivity, and a serious loss to the economy as a whole.
The Bill is designed to correct these glaring injustices. It is proposed that working women should be given the statutory right to reinstatement after absence due to pregnancy. This right could be exercised at any time during a period of 12 months from the date on which the woman left her job.
The employer would be under a duty to reinstate the woman on the same pay, in the same grade and on terms no less favourable than she enjoyed prior to her absence. This would mean that she did not lose seniority for the purposes of sick and holiday pay, pensions and other benefits related to length of service. The time spent on leave would be added to the period already worked in computing the woman's eligibility for these benefits.
The Industrial Relations (Continuity of Employment) Regulations 1972 (1972 SI No. 55) provide that continuity of employment will not be broken if an employee is re-engaged after a complaint of unfair dismissal has been made to an industrial tribunal. By analogy to these existing provisions, this Bill will stipulate that continuity of employment will not be broken

by reason only of an absence attributable to pregnancy for a period not exceeding 12 months.
It is proposed that the right to reinstatement will rest on the completion of six months' continuous employment with the same employer.
The second part of the Bill deals with discrimination against women in matters of personal finance. Nowhere are women more personally discriminated against than in the matter of personal finance. It is widespread practice among agencies that offer credit facilities to provide terms for women which are considerably less favourable than those available to men. It is therefore the purpose of the Bill to give men and women the right to equal treatment by persons and organisations engaged in the grant of credit and other financial facilities.
It will be an offence for any such person to discriminate between men and women in the granting of credit.
The need for legislation in this area is made more and more apparent every day. It is, for example, a practice of many finance houses operating hire-purchase schemes to require, in the case of women purchasers, the counter-signature of a husband, or father, or male landlord. What could be more degrading than to have to ask the landlord for his counter-signature? No such guarantee is required for male purchasers. I ask the House again, what could be more degrading?
The same prejudice is seen in the use of credit cards. At least one of the major credit card organisations in this country requires married women to obtain the signature of their husbands on their application forms. A woman who is a card holder in her own right is subject to even greater humiliation if she marries or re-marries. When she notifies her credit-card company of her change of name, she is automatically sent a new application form, which must state her husband's employment and income and, furthermore, be signed by him.
Women applying for mortgages are extremely unlikely, even when building society funds are not restricted—and it is some time since we knew that situation—to obtain one without a considerable


search. Many building societies do not consider women applicants as a rule. And few of them will aggregate a married woman's income with her husband's. Even if this does occur it invariably counts for less than its face value when the building society uses the multiplier to determine the maximum accordable mortgage.
This Bill cuts out these highly discriminatory practices and will remove women from the odious position of second-class citizens which they currently occupy in employment and in personal finance. Nothing the Government have said in their Green Paper on women's rights covers the provisions offered in my Bill.
The first part of the Bill will give recognition to the special needs of women who want to continue working after childbirth. This Bill can and will reach the statute book in this Session. Only one thing can prevent it and that is the deliberate interference of the Government, directly by using the Whip, or indirectly by encouraging one of their back-bench Members below the Gangway. I am thinking particularly of an area in the region of Buckinghamshire. I say without fear of contradiction that this Bill can and will become law—with the provisos I have made. If the Government interfere directly or encourage one

of their back-bench backwoodsmen to do so, then they do so at their peril because the women of this country are sick and tired of being discriminated against.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Brown: Mr. Frank Tomney, Mr. Ernest G. Perry, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Giles Radice, Dr. John A. Cunningham—whose wife was delivered of a son and heir during yesterday's sitting—Mr. Thomas Torney, Mr. William Hamilton, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mrs. Barbara Castle, Miss Betty Boothroyd and myself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very irregular delivery of the names.

RIGHTS OF WOMEN BILL

Mr. Robert C. Brown accordingly presented a Bill to make a unlawful to deny facilities of insurance, loan, mortgage, finance, hire purchase or other forms of credit to any person solely on grounds of sex; to provide for continuity of employment of women with rights of re-instatement after confinement; and for purposes connected therewith: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th January and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) to move the motion may I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).

3.54 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its grave concern at the way in which the reorganisation of the National Health Service is currently taking place; regrets that the composition of the authorities is primarily appointed rather than elected; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to postpone the coming into operation of the new service pending a full-scale inquiry.
Before proceeding with the motion I have to say one thing. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) last Thursday, the Leader of the House said that he thought that a statement on the ambulance service would be in order in today's debate. It may be, but it seems to us to have not much relevance to the reorganisation of the health service. We do not propose to deal with it and we hope that the Secretary of State will deal with the question on another occasion.
In March of this year during a two-day period the House debated the Second Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill. It was not apparently as well known to the Press that this was the subject of the debate as some of us would have liked. It appeared to the Press that it was a debate on family planning.
Unfortunately, in making this error it missed what was a vital and legitimate point of difference between Government and Opposition and one which now concerns us deeply. I refer to the manner and constitution of a reorganised health service. No one who knew anything about it disputed that the health service should be reorganised. The question was whether there should be the managerial concept which the Government had in mind or

whether instead we should move towards a democratic system.
The Government had already stated their mind in the White Paper issued the previous year. I remind the House of their reasons for preferring the managerial to the democratic system. They are to be found in paragraph 96 of the White Paper. I will not burden the House by reading the whole paragraph but will relate what I believe to be the relevant sentences. The White Paper said:
A diversity and a proper balance of relevant ability and experience are also called for.
We do not disagree. It went on:
These needs can best be met if, in the main, members are chosen for their personal qualities after appropriate consultations, not elected as representatives reflecting the views of particular interests.
This is what the Government stated as their main principle. The months have passed since March and we are now able to see how far these principles have been put into effect. It is right that we should examine first of all the appointments made by the Secretary of State. If we look at the regional health authorities—and this I am sure would distress my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) who has spoken so eloquently about women's rights—we find that only one member out of five is a woman. I will not labour that point too much. The Secretary of State may hear something from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax should she catch your eye a little later, Mr. Speaker.
It is an extraordinary decision because the assumption must be that men have the relevant ability and experience in a ratio of 5: 1 against women. I would have thought that was quite untrue. In the administration of a health service women tend to know much more than men because they are concerned with the producing and rearing of children. It is the family aspect that is so vital in the health service.
If we look at the membership of regional health authorities generally we find that only 15 out of all the regional health authority members are trade unionists or manual workers. That is an average of one per authority. It is an extraordinary idea of where ability and


experience are to be found in our community. I do not say that they should be in the majority, but 15! It seems to be a very small proportion. At least we can spare ourselves the terrible thought of what it would be like to be a woman and a trade unionist. Such a person's chances would be something like one in ninety.
Every member of the regional health authorities has been chosen on the basis of what went before. A total of 60 per cent. of the members of the regional health authorities are people who were employed administering the old hospital services. Of the area health authority chairmen, 59 out of 90 are business or professional people. I do not object to such people being chairmen of authorities. It seems they have as much right as anyone else. But that is a disproportionate amount.
I said that I should like to deal with the question of previous hospital service. Every chairman of the regional health authorities now appointed has been a member of a regional hospital board, hospital management committee or teaching hospital. Of the members of the regional health authorities, six out of ten have also had that experience. Of the chairmen of the area health authorities, also appointed by the Secretary of State, although after consultation with the chairmen of the regional health authorities, 82 out of 90 have previous experience in one of those three hospital sectors.
Hospital experience is a very good thing, because so much of the National Health Service is concerned with hospitals—but surely not in that proportion. If the Secretary of State has forgotten his own White Paper, perhaps I might remind him of it:
In practice, however, the fragmented administration we now have throws barriers in the way of efforts to organise a proper balance of services—hospital and community—throughout the country.
It goes on:
The administrative unification of these services will make a firmer reality of the concept of a single service.
But should all the chairmen of regional health authorities and 82 out of 90 area chairmen have this sort of hospital experience? Where is the community interest, the proper balance of which the White Paper spoke?
There are currently 170 local authorities dealing with community health services. There are the people who are experienced in community health services, who could give that proper balance. It is right to take those with hospital experience, but equally right to take those with community experience.
The area authorities were designed to cope on an administrative level with the social services, because, rightly, it was understood that health services and social services came together. It is often very difficult to define where one begins and the other ends. But what has happened is the most extraordinary development that has ever been seen in the organisation of the National Health Service.
In London, the areas which have been chosen cut right across the borough boundaries, so that, in social services, what started as a reasonable, and indeed a practicable, way of running the health service has become a nonsense. Thus, of the areas in London, six have two boroughs, two have three boroughs and one has as many as four—Newham, the City of London, Hackney and Tower Hamlets. One could imagine the enormous conflict that is bound to arise where there are four borough social service departments and only one area.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Since my right hon. Friend has mentioned Newham, is he aware that Newham has its own social services department, is a local education authority and a housing authority and has hospitals? Is this not a classic case in which its existence and continuance as a single area would seem to be justified?

Mr. Silkin: My right hon. and learned Friend speaks, as always, with sparkling clarity. It stands to reason—but clearly, not to the Secretary of State. Incidentally, the prize for absurdity goes not to that creation but to the joining of Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham. I have a slight interest in Lewisham, since my constituency lies in the borough. Only a third of the members of that area health authority live anywhere near the new area. That is by the way: the main point is that these three boroughs, which are joined into one area, are cut into four districts, so that the individual social service departments are themselves divided. This is because the whole of


this basis of reorganisation, whatever the White Paper says, has been hospital-oriented and not social service-oriented.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend mentioned a difficult case in South-East London. Does he realise that, in North-West London, not only does one see the characteristics that he has described but part of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will be administered by another health authority altogether? When I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to justify this, he was apparently unable to give a reason. When he takes power away from the area health authorities, should he not say why he is doing so?

Mr. Silkin: The only consolation that I can offer my hon. Friend is that perhaps his borough and mine might share the joint prize for absurdity.
What I have spoken about in London occurs of course outside London, for example, in the non-metropolitan counties. I should like to give one illustration—I could give many more. In Kent, the social services are administered at county level but are, rightly, split into 15 social services divisions. I have never thought that this is as good a way as letting the districts run the social services themselves, but at least an attempt has been made to bring the social services to the community. But those divisions are divided among six health districts. The inevitable result must be total administrative chaos.

Mr. David Crouch: No.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait and see.
Our motion asks that the reorganisation be postponed pending an inquiry. We regard this reorganisation, before it has begun, as a total failure. But to look at it from the Government's own point of view, the arguments in favour of postponement seem overwhelming. The reorganisation is supposed to be complete by 1st April 1974. Everybody knows that, in whatever section of the health service one cares to look—whether in the hospitals, to which Lord Reigate drew attention in another place

the other day, or anywhere else—the time scale has been totally disrupted.
The Secretary of State had to define the very districts in the area health authorities. I understood that one of the principles that the managerial system laid down was delegation downwards. It is a new kind of concept, at any rate in relation to McKinsey, that we should now have delegation upwards, from the health authority to the Secretary of State. That is an illustration of the total lack of time and the muddled way in which this has been done.
Worse still, not one medical officer has yet been chosen for any of the 90 areas. How they are to be in operation by 1st April, I do not know. In each of 17 areas there is no administrator and no financial officer. These, too, have to be picked. Perhaps worst of all, because of the possible implications, in the health districts the post of district community physician has not yet even been advertised. The district community physician, as the House is well aware, has to be skilled in the control of infectious diseases, communicable diseases and food poisoning. He has to use local authority personnel. Under reorganisation, local authorities have a voice in his selection. Circular 34/73 states in paragraph 30 that local authorities, the police, the area health authorities and—it will relieve the mind of the House to know—the Department of Health and Social Security itself, must know the name, address and telephone number of the district community physician by 31st March 1974.
But the Secretary of State cannot deny that, in many cases throughout the country, out of 500 posts created, there will be those which have not yet been filled. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State what happens if there is an outbreak of food poisoning. I know the answer is that we shall muddle through and that the matter will be dealt with, but that does not seem to suggest administrative efficiency.
I come to my final point regarding postponement of the reorganisation of the health service. Ten years ago, there was a Minister of Housing and Local Government who reorganised the London area. That Minister realised, because he was then young, virile and able, that a long time was needed from the moment all the chief officers were appointed to


the time that the new service was running—the breaking-in period. Therefore, all the chief officers had been appointed by June or July 1963. As it was, when reorganisation took effect in April 1964 the then Minister of Housing and Local Government might have agreed with me that it was touch and go but that the changeover had just about worked.
But in the reorganisation of the health service, the vital 20 per cent. of officers have not yet been chosen. That is why we should postpone the operative date of the reorganisation. I suggest that the Secretary of State has a word with the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. Together they might come to a consensus on the matter.

Mr. William Molly: This is an extraordinarily important point. I remember that during the period to which my right hon. Friend referred, one of the arguments which was advanced—and which seemed at the time to be particularly cogent—was that, with the growth of London and of the social services, the new forms of administration which the Minister was then proposing would fit in neatly with all the things which might have to happen. We are experiencing the same attitude again with the National Health Service reorganisation. Either the right hon. Gentleman was wrong then or he is wrong now, or, possibly, he is wrong in both cases. He does not seem to have been right at all.

Mr. Silkin: I think the right hon. Gentleman was more right then than he is now.
If this is the situation, is it not right, out of common sense and from the Government's point of view—forgetting the difference in philosophy which we have with them—to postpone the coming into force of the reorganised health service? If that is right—and we believe it to be so—perhaps at the same time an independent inquiry should be set up to examine the whole structure and basis of the reorganisation of the health service. It is manifestly and totally wrong if, in order to fill the posts of chairmen of the regional and area health authorities, the Government have to go to the old hospital service. What is the point of trying to argue for integration if the Government are merely going back

to the hospital services? There is no point in it.
I would not wish the Secretary of State to say that I was being destructive and not constructive. I have, therefore, three short suggestions on steps towards a transition to democratic control, which is manifestly the right way to reorganise the service. The first is that a substantial majority of members of the new authorities should be from local government and the trade unions, not from the old hospital service, and not from business and the professions, which is the present situation. Secondly, community health councils should be wholly composed of local authority members so that they could have executive control over the district management teams, which could then act as their advisers. Thirdly, I suggest that the Secretary of State has consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, following which there should be delegated to the districts—or the districts should be given—advisory powers to deal with social services in their areas. In this way, we would be preparing for what would be a truly integrated National Health Service.
I do not for one moment believe that the system as envisaged and as peopled at the moment will last. Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, he has introduced an interim measure. It will be up to a Labour Government when the time comes to give the people of this country a true National Health Service.

4.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): In asking the House to reject the motion, I shall deal with the points made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) in what I regard as an unrealistic speech. It will be common ground that the reorganisation of the National Health Service must be one of the largest management enterprises ever undertaken, I would have thought, in the free world. In England and Wales alone the service employs more than 800,000 people, with a budget of about £3 billion a year.
The House will remember that reorganisation has been under discussion for a decade. A long series of papers have been produced, first under the Labour Government and then under this Government. Those who work in the


service are entitled to have decisions made and carried through. There has legitimately been uncertainty for long enough. The vast majority of staff—except a very small proportion in the upper echelons of management—are likely, after 1st April next year, to be doing much the same work, in the same place, as they are doing now. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to have a faster growth in the money available to the health service but there is, and has been, a regular increase in the resources available and in the size and quality of the service. This has been such that the staff can count on a real improvement in their prospects of providing a good service to the public.
It is precisely to provide a better service to the public that the reorganisation has been mooted by both parties in turn. The better structure which we believe will emerge from this reorganisation, despite the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman, will give a much closer link with the parallel reorganised local government service. It will also give a much better scope for identifying the needs of the patients, and detecting and putting right defects in the service. Therefore, there will be much greater opportunities for staff to provide a more effective service to the public
One of the essentials of reorganisation recognised by both Governments is that there should be a transfer of the local authority health component to the National Health Service. That has been agreed, and has been an ingredient of the proposals of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Local government is being reorganised, and the reorganisation comes into force on 1st April.
The House must accept that the reorganisation of local government and the reorganisation of the National Health Service must coincide in time, since one large component of the present local authority services is going, by common consent, to be transferred to the National Health Service. If the times of reorganisation were not to coincide, there would be nowhere for that reorganised local authority health component, staff and functions to go.
It would be a valid criticism, if it were made, that, since the reorganisation of

the two services coincides, the dates of legislation for the two services should have coincided also. In a perfect world, the Government would have wished to introduce the local authority reorganisation legislation and the NHS reorganisation legislation in the same Session. But the world is not perfect. With the best will in the world, it was not possible, because of the legislative timetable, to introduce both Bills simultaneously, and, therefore, we are faced with a position in which the dates of reorganisation of the two services must coincide but we have had less time to accomplish the National Health Service reorganisation than ideally we would have liked.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The reorganisation of the Scottish Health Service starts in April next year, but the reorganised Scottish local government structure does not start until May 1975.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not answerable for Scotland, and I very much envy the fact that the Scots got their legislation in substantially earlier. I am acknowledging to the House that I regret that we did not introduce our legislation earlier. It is no good the right hon. Member for Deptford wagging his head sagely from side to side. Even he would not have been able to find, under his very vacuous proposals, any authority to take over the functions and the staff of the local government health services which cease to exist, under legislation which he scarcely mentioned, on 1st April next.
It would be no kindness, even if it were practicable, to defer the reorganisation of the NHS. It would only prolong the uncertainties from which health service staff have been suffering for too long, and we are faced inevitably with the local government reorganisation, which is crucially linked with NHS reorganisation, on 1st April.
The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to tell us where, under his proposals for postponement, the local authority health functions and staff would go. It would be completely impracticable, even if the Government wished to do so, to postpone the reorganisation. In the light of this fact, and of the compressed timetable—I accept that point—that we have had since Royal Assent, it is sensible to concentrate, as we are doing, on the


immediate priorities. That is our approach.
We have established the new authorities. Our job now is to see that they are staffed, to ensure a smooth transfer of staff, to promote the interests of the staff on transfer, and, above all, to maintain the continuity of service to the patients.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Would it not be possible to obtain a smoother transfer of staff if the staff were to be consulted about that transfer? Has the right hon. Gentleman not considered the possibility of immediately setting up joint consultative machinery with the trade unions involved in the NHS in an attempt more effectively to arrange a smoother transfer of staff?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall be dealing at some length later in my speech with consultation.
The main difference between the Opposition and the Government is, and, I think, has been throughout the debates on the Act, with regard to the composition of the authorities. The Government's view is that the NHS is largely paid for by the taxpayers and, therefore, should be conducted by authorities responsible to a Minister who is himself accountable to this House. Those authorities look to the Minister for finance, and, therefore, should look to him for guidance on strategy and policy. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals would separate the control of finance from policy. They would presumably leave a Minister responsible to this House for the policy of the NHS and for its strategy, but would give to bodies quite separate from the Minister and out of his control responsibility for running the service.

Mr. Spearing: Like the education service.

Sir K. Joseph: These bodies would not, as in the case of the education authorities, be providing any money towards the running of the NHS. They would, therefore, look to the Minister for money but not necessarily meet his priorities for policy and strategy.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Within the present structure the local health authorities as of right have £250 million. What is happening to that?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is a student of this subject. He knows that on reorganisation the rates cease to bear that cost and it is transferred to the taxpayers, so that, as from 1st April, that part of the service now being paid for by the ratepayers goes on the taxpayers' shoulders. I am being logical in this. The Opposition are being illogical and inconsistent.
Under the cry of democracy, the right hon. Gentleman proposes a number of steps whose significance I do not think he appreciates. He suggests that a body of elected members should be responsible for running the service. That body would find not a penny towards running it. Yet it would be expected, I suppose, to obey the policy of the Government of the day. There would be no link between them, however. Finance and policy would be totally separated.
The right hon. Gentleman has further revealed his hand today. I am sure that the voluntary bodies will be interested that he proposes that the community health councils should be composed entirely of elected members. The Government propose that the voluntary bodies should have at least one-third of the seats on these new watchdogs for the public, but they would be excluded by the Opposition if they were in charge of the NHS.
The Opposition flinched, during the prolonged and, I thought, very valuable Committee stage debates when the Act was going through the House, from the logic of their own thinking. They flinched from proposing that the service should be put under local government. They yearn to put it under local government, but they realistically accepted that it is not practicable, at any rate now.
The Opposition also flinched from proposing that the health authorities should be wholly elected. They never proposed that in Committee nor voted in favour of it. What they argued about in Committee, perfectly legitimately, was the rather smaller issue whether there should be four, five or six local authority members on an area health authority of 15 or 16 members.

Mr. John Silkin: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to be fair. The first way in which he can be fair is to recognise that, after occupying the position of Government Chief Whip for three


years, I am strictly a non-flincher. Secondly, it is a pity that he did not read—and I quite understand that he was not able to attend all the sittings of the Committee—the Committee reports carefully. Had he done so, he would have seen clearly set out that we accepted that we had a Conservative Government bent on a particular system of reorganisation. We realised that, since we were not in Government, we could not immediately put the National Health Service under local government control, and therefore suggested a transition or compromise which would be mid-way between his managerial, monarchical system and a real democratic system. We said it over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman should read the Committee proceedings.

Sir K. Joseph: I scrupulously read the reports of those sittings which I did not attend, and I certainly did not get that impression from the views of the Opposition. Therefore, the difference between us in the debates has been the number of members on area health authorities. I think that the House will accept that whether there were five or six local authority members on the area health authorities instead of the four that we now have would not make a hap'orth of difference to the transitional problems that we face in bringing about the reorganisation.
I turn to the membership of the authorities. I am responsible, as the right hon. Gentleman properly said, for the choice of the chairmen of the regions, the chairmen of the areas and the members of the regions. I chose—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me credit for this—to the very best of my ability, taking into account the need for some experience of management. There are trade unionists who have been appointed because they have had experience of management. I chose after consulting with very large numbers of bodies—for instance, the universities, local authorities, the medical profession and the nursing profession—each part of the merging service. I had to take into account in appointing members of the regions the geographic factors. I consulted the TUC and the healing professions, such as the dentists and the pharmacists.
The right hon. Gentleman charged me with appointing as area health authority chairmen—a crucial post—a vast predominance of people with hospital experience. That is quite right. What the right hon. Gentleman had failed to perceive, however, was that a very large number of those who are now area health authority chairmen who have had hospital experience also have had local authority and executive council experience. There are 90 area health authority chairmen. Of those, 29 have had local authority experience. Sixteen of them have had executive council experience. Some of those are the same individuals as have had hospital experience. In other words, many chairmen have more than one kind of experience behind them.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) referred to consultation. Consultation has been our watchword from the outset. But the scale of this operation has been so vast and the range of subjects so detailed that the draft documents put out for consultation have represented a very heavy burden to those called upon to study them.
I pay tribute to the rôle of the trade unions and the staff associations. In all the countless discussions and consultations, these bodies have been nothing but helpful and constructive. Their practical commonsense approach to the problems involved has made their contribution to this massive exercise invaluable. Of course there have been disagreements. Disagreements are inevitable with such a large-scale and radical change of structure. But, while tenaciously protecting the interests of their members, and even when our differences seemed insoluble, the staff associations and the trade unions have never ceased to be allies in working towards a successful conclusion to our task. However, despite months of consultation and despite the constructive attitude of all concerned and the very hard work put into the matter, there are, I fear, still a number of complaints by staff of lack of knowledge. This is largely on matters—mostly conditions of service—which are still under consultation with the staff side at national level.
Proposals on compensation, early retirement and salary protection were first published as consultative documents, and


the staff had to await the final arrangements. The early retirement scheme, in its final form, as published last month, and the aim is to publish compensation and salary protection arrangements in a few weeks' time. The early retirement terms contain specific improvements introduced as a result of consultation with the staff side. There have been detailed and fruitful discussions with the staff side on protection. Salaries are still being negotiated for a number of posts, particularly for second-line posts.
I must take this opportunity of saying that I am apologetic about the failure to be able to pay temporary allowances for a number of staff who put in extra work. The Governments' hopes and intentions were blocked by a Pay Board ruling which, in fairness, the Government had to accept for their staff, just as they required other interests to accept similar rules. I think that it is common ground with the staff side that the Government negotiated the temporary allowances with the best intentions and had every intention of honouring them, but they were blocked by the Pay Board ruling.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Did not the consultative document about early retirement to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred make special reference to the situation of chief administrative officers of health authorities in local government work, and do not the regulations as now issued specifically exclude them from the early retirement rules? Secondly, is the Minister aware of the fact that 27 trade unions were represented at a meeting in Manchester a week ago last Friday, a meeting which was attended by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and myself, and complained bitterly of the utter lack of consultation on the reorganisation of the health service that had occurred in the county?

Sir K. Joseph: I was not aware of the first point. I shall read what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him. On the second point, I am sure that there is legitimate disappointment with the outcome of the consultation because in some cases the final documents have not yet been issued. But no one can charge us with not having had an enormous amount of consultation with the staff side and the trade unions.
In view of the time available I shall not go into great detail about the top management position. Out of 2,500–3,000 top management posts, some 600 are already filled, or interviews are now in progress or dates for interviews fixed. Short-listing is in progress or completed, and the posts are being advertised or are very shortly to be advertised for a further 1,200. Within a matter of weeks, very nearly all the top three-quarters of the main management echelons will have been completed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has tabled an amendment on the Order Paper, which is not being called, about hospital secretaries. I appreciate that they, like other administrators, are anxious to have details as soon as possible of the range of new administrative posts. Negotiations for the second in line administrative salaries began in September. I understand that the Whitley Council expects to hold another meeting to discuss the management side's offer later this month.
I turn to districting, where about 90 per cent. of the 205 districts presented no great problems. The local joint liaison committees were able to reach agreement on their proposals, and I promulgated an agreed solution. But there were a number of cases, of which about a half a dozen were extremely difficult, where I would defy even Solomon to arrive at a solution agreeable to all interests. There was really a choice of unsatisfactory solutions. After considerable agonising and much listening to and reading of views, I had to come to a solution. I do not pretend that in the parts of London where our predecessors scattered hospitals in a manner unrelated to the present population the solutions are entirely satisfactory, but I maintain that they are marginally less unsatisfactory than the alternative would have been.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) is doubtless about to ask why I have not been able to explain my decision in relation to his area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary met a deputation from the hon. Gentleman's area. He will be writing about the reasons for the decision, which he explained after the hon. Gentleman had, for perfectly legitimate reasons, left the meeting. My hon. Friend is meeting the area authority tomorrow.

Mr. Molloy: I remained for the entire meeting. We had some sympathy for the Under-Secretary, who informed us at the beginning of the meeting that the time taken up by the members of the deputation was being wasted, because his right hon. Friend had made the decision, from which the Under-Secretary could in no way depart.

Sir K. Joseph: These decisions have been made in what my colleagues and I regard as the public interest. They are made on a balance of the merits of the arguments. It will be open to the area health authorities, after some experience of the service—they will have to run the service for some time—to make proposals for the changing of districts. That is why these decisions can be altered later if they are shown to be less good than are the alternatives.

Mr. Spearing: No. It cannot happen in our case.

Sir K. Joseph: I must draw my speech to a close, but I shall ask my hon. Friend to take up the point if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I come now to my two final points. I have paid tribute to the trade unions and the staff association, and I should now like to pay tribute to my own staff. It has been an enormous job to translate the strategic decisions of Ministers into reality. I ask the House to accept that the critical path network for this reorganisation was of a huge size, with very large numbers of items, each infinitely complex and delicate, and I should like to say that my staff have spontaneously, enthusiastically and effectively carried out a really superhuman management task inside the Department. This reorganisation may be among the largest management enterprises ever undertaken, but this is a reorganisation which I believe the House should accept as necessary to go ahead, because it will strengthen the links between the professional skills, because it will bring better integrated and more effective care to the patient, and because it will increase public involvement in the National Health Service.
Most of the top jobs are now filled or are being filled. The whole massive remodelling of the National Health Service for the benefit of the patient is fast

gathering momentum. There is no turning back, and we are moving in top gear towards the new service, which is only three and a half months away. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the plausible but ultimately negative and sterile motion on the Order Paper and will vote in favour of carrying on with the reorganisation on the appointed day.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: I am astonished at the complacency shown by the Secretary of State for Social Services, for the picture he portrayed of the smoothness with which this reorganisation is taking place is a totally different one from that which has been given to me in the Nottingham area. I want to refer later to the views of the staff there, but, first, I go back a little in time, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin).
When the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill was first presented it was quite apparent that it was much more concerned with management and administration than with people and accountability to the public. It will be recalled that a management study, in the setting of the Government's decisions on the reorganisation of the National Health Service, was conducted in 1972, and, as I pointed out in the debate on Second Reading, a study group came to Nottingham. That study group seemed to be largely in the hands of management consultants, who came to Nottingham with instructions about the kind of organisation that the Government wanted. They had preconceived ideas, which meant that their minds were closed to much of what people in the service in Nottingham had to say. They were concerned mainly with management and administration, and only remotely with people, with suffering humanity.
Since the emphasis of the whole exercise was on managerial efficiency, and since the approach of the Government was much more like that of a factory manager with a target of productivity in mind than of a body of people concerned with a system whose purpose is, after all, to prevent and treat disease, one would have thought that the Government would at least have ensured that the administrative arrangements for the reorganisation


of the National Health Service would go ahead like clockwork. That has not happened; the reverse is the case. The mess which now exists suggests that for a long time ahead the service will be struggling with management arrangements to such an extent that the patient, the reason for the existence of the service, will suffer. In this field, as in so many others, the Government are like a conjuror with too many balls in the air at the same time, and the confusion created by this situation is causing bewilderment and immense uncertainty in the minds of staff.
The Government have arranged for the reorganisation of local government and health services to come into operation at the same time, for reasons which can be considered valid—and the right hon. Gentleman has argued that they are valid. But I have never known a time when there has existed so much worry, so much doubt and so much uncertainty in the minds of so many people in a variety of grades in both health services and local government. In both, large numbers of people are now being compelled to jostle with their colleagues in an endeavour to find posts in the reorganised systems. There is an unseemly scramble, forced upon these people by the manner in which the reorganisations have been dealt with by the Government, and this can only be to the detriment of local government and the health services.
The current position in regard to the reorganisation of the health services is that most senior officials have been appointed at regional and area levels, and similar appointments will be made by 31st March at district level. Thus, the new service will come into operation on 1st April 1974 with no other firm appointments made. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has virtually admitted that the state of reorganisation is hopelessly ill-prepared to commence the new services in April 1974, since it has issued National Health Service Reorganisation Circular, HRC (73)36, which states that the vast majority of existing departments, hospitals and other units will be "latched on" to those most senior officers who have been appointed by 1st April 1974. The term "latched on" is the Department's own expression.
Thus, there is an admission that there is no clear picture of the future for large

numbers of staff. They are no more than unidentified numbers attached to senior officials, who are not likely in April 1974 suddenly and miraculously to produce a wonderfully cohesive structure in which everyone will have his appointed place and will know exactly how he can use his abilities in the interests of the health services. That is a terrible state of affairs after the Government have made their decision on the way in which the services will be reorganised, and after they have appointed "whizz-kid" managerial consultants to see that it is carried out.
I know of one fairly senior official who has given the whole of his working life to the hospital service but now, in his mid-fifties, finds himself cast on one side, having to punt around like so many others of his colleagues to find a new post. For him the future is very bleak because the reorganisation is taking place in such a way that he faces a very real possibility—I should have said almost a certainty—that he will have to spend the rest of his working life in a subordinate post, the great wealth of his experience lost to the service. This is just one example of what is happening. The same doubts about the future face large numbers of staff of all ages and in a variety of grades.
In spite of what the Secretary of State said, there is no effective consultation with these people, and to their doubts about their future is added the frustration caused by the unjustifiably narrow way in which the Pay Board views the proposed changes of the totally unrealistic salary scale, which cannot and does not attract staff in sufficient numbers. For some time Nottingham has been short of staff in many grades in the health services, and I fear that the present chaotic state reached in the run up to the reorganisation will cause many people to leave the service. I hope that that will not happen, but I fear the contrary.
In spite of all the frustrations inherent in all this, great efforts are being made by these dedicated people to keep up morale. But because of that no one should attempt to trade upon their loyalty. I believe they may well be reaching a breaking point in a number of cases, and the Government must not complacently brush aside their feelings and doubts in the hope that somehow on the appointed day all will be well. As


we ask in the motion, the Government should postpone the date of the coming into operation of the reorganised service in the interests of the staff, in the interests of good management and not least in the interests of the community. They must give serious attention to the problems which their complacency and pig-headed-ness have created.

4.53 p.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) will forgive me if I do not pursue the points he raised except over what he said about the necessity of the National Health Service being for the benefit of the patient. I hope that is something that every hon. Member will accept immediately.
I should like to direct my remarks to the speech by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). He seemed to have one or two quite good darts but he must have been aiming at the board through bi-focals because he was missing the target. It seemed to me that someone had fed him the information, that it was second hand. That was how it seemed when he was referring to the immediate organisation of the health service as opposed to the broad managerial concept, which he obviously does not like. He used the term "democratic control". That is the sort of expression that we are ail supposed to pay lip service to, but what did he mean? Did he mean that each of the hundreds and thousands of decisions taken daily in an organisation like the health service must be taken in a democratic manner covered by a vote, or did he mean that the ultimate control of the service must be democratic? These seem to me two quite different concepts and the right hon. Gentleman did not spell out precisely what he meant.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is a 5 to 1 chance against women getting on one of the boards. There are two very good reasons for this. It is often forgotten that a large part of the function of operating something like the health service is concerned with such matters as building, engineering, capital works, finance and so on. These people, whether they are men or women—and, incidentally, this applies to the manual workers to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred as much as to women—

need to be found in the first place so that they may be advanced to the area or regional boards. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend has any prejudice against either of those groups of people.
I declare to those who do not already know it that I have a vested interest in this subject in that I am a doctor. Yet I do not believe that doctors are particularly well qualified to run the service any more than I think women are particularly well qualified to run it because they have babies. That was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman was arguing. I knew a distinguished doctor who felt he should have a much greater say in the running of the health service. I thought that as a doctor he was first-class but I thought that as a manager he was a fool. I had no say in whether he should assume this extra authority. It so happened that he obtained a part-time position which led him to the realisation that his particular specialty was not the only one on earth, that his particular minor vested interest—and in totality it was a minor interest—was not the only thing that mattered. Slowly over the course of four years that man became a first-class managerial talent who happened at the same time to be a doctor. I believe that his qualification to occupy his present position is that he knows what he is doing with regard to many other people's specialties and not because he happens to be a clever doctor.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) always speaks clearly and lucidly, yet he made one Freudian slip on this occasion on which I shall correct him I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not do so. These are authorities, not boards. He used the word "board" three times and that is because he is thinking of it as a hospital-based service. That is precisely one of the bases of my attacks on the reorganisation. That is why women are important. We are concerned not just with building hospitals but with developing community and family-based services.

Dr. Trafford: I am sorry that I gave way. If the right hon. Gentleman had only waited he would have seen that I had by no means overlooked the point. If I used the term "boards" and not "authorities", that is not a Freudian slip. A


Freudian slip can be made only in connection with my mother or other women. It could not have been made in connection with a board. On a board, perhaps. With a board—well, the mind boggles.
The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that too many "old lags" from the previous regional boards had been appointed to the new authorities. I will repeat the word twice—authorities, authorities. Now I have caught up with the number of times I misused the word "boards". One of the reasons why I am sure that my hon. Friend chose the old lags—I did not entirely agree with many of his choices—is connected with the very great problem of finding the right people. It is more important to find the right people than to find the right looking structure, because it is people who run the service and make it tick.
The right hon. Gentleman made a slightly unfair comment when he said that no area authority medical officers have been chosen. As I am sure he knows, to a large extent the functions of the people who will be applying for such jobs will be similar to many of the functions which they are now performing. If there is some weakness in definition the right hon. Gentleman should apply himself to how the job description should be defined. I dread to think how he might view such definition in view of his limited knowledge of psychiatric matters. Nevertheless, I feel that he should look carefully at the exact jobs which will be done by a district community physician. The position is still a little woolly. It will be found that many different areas will have different functions for their officers.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would do so—that it is difficult to separate health and social services. I have always regretted that we were not able for various reasons to combine the reform of the social services and that of the National Health Service at the same time. This will be a far bigger weakness than delay, postponement and hasty appointments. Far more difficulties will arise because although there is a structural division between health and social services there is not always the same degree of actual or practical division between the two services.
One factor which the right hon. Gentleman overlooked is that inside the newly reorganised service there will be something known as the district medical team. It will have in it a community physician and various other people from the district. This will be the first time that the general practitioner services and the hospital services will be able to meet to take advice. I was going to say that there will be a statutory woman, but I would make an error. A nurse may be a man, and in that case my description would not be accurate. The people in the team should have their fingers right on the local pulse. I hope very much that the persons who serve on such a team will be able to keep closely in touch not only with the community councils and voluntary bodies but with the necessities of health in the area.
There are a number of unanswered questions. They are questions which I should like to see answered by the district team in any area. First, no one has ever answered the question: who runs a hospital, or how is a hospital run? Although it is said in theory that responsibility for the running of a hospital is with the hospital management committee, the regional board or finally with the Secretary of State, in fact, no one runs a hospital.
Hospitals tick over in a peculiarly disjointed fashion which often leads to gross inefficiency and gross misallocation of resources. Often it is the biggest, the strongest and the toughest of the doctors the consultants or the administrators who will be able to obtain his own way at the expense of others. A good district management team under the new reorganisation should be able to reallocate resources with greater efficiency. Of course, if they are useless people they will make useless decisions, but they now have an opportunity, when a hospital decision arises which involves the influence of those working in community medicine, in general practice or in district nursing, to bring their influence to bear on such a decision. That does not happen now.
I am probably the only hon. Member in the Chamber who has any experience of how, on the ground, the reorganisation of the National Health Service is going. Therefore, I claim a right to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his views


on the reorganisation are second hand. It is not going as badly as the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggest. It is going very much better. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the patient. No doctor on 2nd April will act differently with regard to his patients. Nor will any district nurse, health visitor or social worker. The hospital casualty doors will be open as always. The hospital operating theatres will continue. The ambulances will work and the patients will arrive. The hospitals will proceed. I accept that there might be some administrative difficulties, but there is opportunity to concentrate towards patients the proper allocation of resources.
My right hon. Friend mentioned nothing about priorities in defending the reorganisation. It would be appropriate for hon. Members to ask themselves how the priorities will be decided. For example, which is the more serious, the elderly patient who lives alone and is threatened with cold in the winter, or the patient dying of a kidney disease, a heart attack or cancer? Who takes decisions on priorities, and how will the resources be allocated? At present no one takes such decisions. No one makes up a list of priorities. I should find it difficult to make such a list even if I were given dictatorial powers to do so.
The result is that in differing areas, and as a result of pressure groups, totally disproportionate resources can be allocated to something glamorous, something fresh or something new. It is even possible that resources can be granted to something which is phoney. With a leavening of common sense, which I trust will come from the community councils and from the lowest echelons of the newly reorganised service, management teams will be able to stop the misallocation of resources.
Furthermore, we badly need the collection of data upon which to act even at the most local level. There must be in the area to which I am referring as many patients suffering from severe arthritis as there are in any other area. The allocation of beds for care, and the amount of money spent on such people, is not great. At the same time, the area runs an expensive coronary care unit. An ambulance screams around the countryside,

rather like the old carts during the 1665 plague, with its bell ringing and someone shouting "Bring out your injured." [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring out your dead"] No, the ambulance does not go round asking people to bring out their dead.
Somehow, a decision must be made as to how such demanding services are to be allocated resources. Is it right that such resources should be spent in one way rather than another? At the moment no one makes that sort of decision, and all sorts of differing pressures operate. My right hon. Friend will recognise immediately that only too often in the past, in matters of health, those who are able to produce from their pockets a pound for pound offer for a building project will frequently receive a wing to a hospital or an addition to a hospital which the far more deserving will not receive because they are unable to make such an offer. My example was in the context of building, but there is a necessity to allocate between a coronary care unit and the care of those suffering from arthritis.
I know that the arthritic will not die tomorrow and that the coronary might. We badly need data which will enable us to make the appropriate allocation of resources. Last year the ambulance to which I referred—an account was published in the British Medical Journal—made 1,082 calls, and only 750 which were referred to it were as a result of chest pains due to heart disease. Of that number, eight patients were resuscitated within the ambulance. Of those, four left hospital alive. In rough terms, of all the calls there was a 0·4 per cent. possible saving in terms of mortality. Perhaps there was a greater saving in terms of morbidity. That was achieved at enormous cost compared with that provided for people suffering from arthritis, old people's homes, the limbless and all the other interests that press upon us.
It is no good people coming forward and screaming at the top of their voice that we need more old people's homes, more money for the mentally disabled, more money for arthritics and more money for cancer relief. It happens that there are only three ways in which we can deal with the situation. The first is to say that by order and decision of Parliament, or of the Secretary of State through Parliament, this will happen.


That is a purely arbitrary and dictatorial decision. The second is to say that we will cost it in some way, perhaps by a price mechanism. The first rations and the second costs. The third possible way is to hand it towards the locality with as much liberty as possible within the two ways I have mentioned to allocate the resources according to the necessities or the desired priorities of the locality. I prefer that third way.
I particularly wish to take up with the right hon. Gentleman the question of democratic or community control. At that level the members of the district team who are elected to the authority, with the exception of the administrators, who are appointed, are sensitive to local conditions, and they have an opportunity that no group has had in the National Health Service in 25 years to improve the lot of patients, to deliver the best possible health care within the allocated resources and to improve services in their own area in the direction that the particular necessities require or, if it is not a matter of necessity, in the choices that the residents dictate. That is a considerable advance and a worthwhile reorganisation. When I come to the areas and regions I am far less convinced that the change will make much difference to the way in which that part of the service operates.
However much good will and humanity is poured out by all those who speak on this subject, it is still necessary to have organised expertise brought to bear on the ultimate requirement of the health service, which is the best possible delivery of health care within a certain financial limit. That is the justification for a management reorganisation. For these major reasons I believe that there is an opportunity from which great advance and benefit to all can come.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for enabling me to make my maiden speech on the subject of National Health Service reorganisation, which causes concern to rural areas because of the risk that centralisation of administration may lead to centralisation of the service.
I am privileged to represent Berwick-upon-Tweed, a constituency of great and

diverse beauty. In an area of 800 square miles we have the grandeur of the Cheviot Hills, a magnificent coastline studded with castles, fishing villages, Holy Island, the Farne Islands, rivers known for their salmon-fishing, particularly the Tweed and the Coquet, and towns of great importance such as Berwick and Alnwick. Berwick is increasingly recognised as a walled town of international significance, although the cost of maintaining its great stock of listed buildings is beyond its means.
Ours is an area in which agriculture has traditionally been our major industry, but with vastly improved productivity it now employs a much smaller labour force than hitherto. Quarrying, forestry and fishing are important employers in the area, and one of the most important employers of all is the coal industry. Two pits, at Shilbottle and Whittle, provide house coal of high quality, but at the cost of extremely arduous working conditions in very low seams. In addition, we look to new developments in small industrial and administrative employment to stem the population decline.
The problems which face my constituency are not unknown to other hon. Members who represent rural areas, but they are made more difficult to solve because the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency is further from London than any other in England, and this distance is not eased by any of the benefits of closer attention which the Scottish and Welsh Departments, even under the present limited decentralisation of power to those countries, are able to give to their areas. I think it can be shown that from the point of view of health reorganisation my area would have been more favourably treated had it not been in England.
I should perhaps correct a widespread misapprehension which may be less common in the House than in some Government offices. Although Berwick has changed hands between England and Scotland many times in earlier centuries and is reputed, incidentally, to have been left out of the peace treaty with Russia at the end of the Crimean War, leaving us still in a state of war with that country, it is not in Scotland. It contains no part of the Scottish county of Berwickshire, which is represented by another hon. Member. It consists entirely of the


northern part of Northumberland. We prefer to take the best that Scotland can offer, be it Presbyterianism, whisky, Old Year's Night, or a position at the top of the Scottish Football League Division 2, while remaining resolutely English.
It should be unnecessary for me to describe my constituency and its problems at length to the Secretary of State. I am sorry that he is absent. He and other right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench were kind enough to visit my constituency, by coincidence, last month. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my presence here in no way suggests that my constituents failed to appreciate the trouble he took, and I look forward to welcoming him back on any future occasion when he is able to fit a visit into his timetable.
I fear, however, that the Secretary of State's visit came too late and was too brief to affect his health service reorganisation. It is lamentably characteristic of schemes of reorganisation of all kinds—this one is no exception—that they are conceived with one part of the country in mind and then applied to another part to which they are totally unsuited.
I take the example of the district level of organisation in which the district general hospital is an essential component. There is no such thing as a district general hospital in the whole area of the new Northumberland Health Authority, and there is never likely to be, because Northumberland and Newcastle are interdependent for hospital services, and no one of the four general hospital centres within Northumberland could be developed to the extent that it could satisfactorily serve the whole area. As there is no district general hospital in the area, the logic of the district system breaks down and it becomes necessary to impose an arbitrary minimum population limit of 100,000 to prevent areas like my constituency from being treated as districts. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and considers the arrangements that that gentleman has approved for the county of Dyfed. That is an area, with a population identical to that of my own county,

which has been treated much more favourably and divided into four health districts. That is why I said at the beginning that we would have been treated more favourably if we had been in Wales or Scotland.
It is to be hoped that if reorganisation proceeds on present lines both the Department and the area health authority will look favourably at the possibility of dividing Northumberland into at least three geographical sectors for the management of the health service with separate community health councils to match these sectors.
If that is not allowed there will be centralisation of management with a loss of efficiency, loss of an understanding of local problems, a loss of much-needed administrative and clerical employment to towns like Alnwick and Berwick and, perhaps more important, a loss of commitment to the decentralisation of medical services in the area.
At the moment far too many patients and relatives have to make long and difficult journeys to hospitals outside the constituency. It is common for relatives to have to spend four or five hours in travelling to Ashington or Newcastle for a brief visit to a patient. Cases have been reported of out-patients spending as long as seven hours in an ambulance travelling to and from a 15-minute consultation. There is great scope for the expansion of facilities at Alnwick and Berwick but little prospect of the expansion taking place if all the decisions rest with a larger area with a prior interest in building up Ashington.
The Secretary of State has often stressed the desirability of decentralising psychiatric beds out of large hospitals, but there is little sign of such a policy in Northumberland, where 2,000 beds are concentrated at Morpeth. Psychiatric day hospitals and small acute psychiatric units attached to the present infirmaries could all be developed at Alnwick and Berwick, where there are far better opportunities to recruit nursing and ancillary staff than in the more prosperous and congested areas. That, I think, was noted by the right hon. Gentleman on his recent visit.
Facilities for the young chronic sick and elderly patients with severe dementia could be provided in these centres. None of these things is likely to happen under


a system in which decision making does not sufficiently involve local people with a real commitment to decentralisation.
This brings me to the two wider points which will lead me and my hon. Friends to support the motion. One is that of all the options which were open to the Government for reorganising the National Health Service they have chosen the least democratic and the least representative scheme possible. What were the possibilities for a united health service? There could have been local government control—an idea which was obliquely recommended by the Redcliffe-Maud report but was rejected by the Labour Government and by the present Conservative Government. There is a system based on ministerial appointments with no element of direct election, which is the option the Government have chosen. There is also the possibility of health authorities with directly elected members as well as representatives of the professions and occupations. We would have preferred such a system. The system eventually favoured by the Labour Government involved representation from the local authorities and supplied an element of democratic participation. This last possibility falls short of our ideals, but it was preferable to what we are now being offered. Indeed, in regard to lay involvement in running the health service the present system is preferable to the new one.
I am sure that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who regret the departure from health management of the thousands of men and women who gave valuable public service on hospital management committees and local authority health committees. In the new system the only place for lay participation on this scale is through the powerless community health councils, which, although no doubt they will find something useful to do, will be at the receiving end rather than at the making end of major decisions. At the level of the district team there is no lay participation at all, and at the area and regional level it is on an appointed basis. The public for whom the service is provided surely deserve a system to which they may have greater representative access than this. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that those of us who take this view are confused between management

and the community's reaction to management. That confusion, if confusion it is, is at the heart of our whole system of government—local and central—and is embodied even in his own position as Secretary of State, and rightly so.
In this country we have long believed that elected representatives of the public should be involved in supervising the management of the services which are provided for the public. But there is another reason for concern which, in view of all the Government's references to the need for management ability in the new National Health Service, is surprising and even ironic. There is enormous and widespread feeling among those who operate the health service that the process of reorganisation has gone badly wrong.
I am involved as a councillor in local government reorganisation, and I know just how difficult the process is and the problems which are faced. But the trials and fears of local government reorganisation have been as nothing when compared to the present situation in the National Health Service. The list of grievances is very long. It ranges from the mysterious principles on which shortlisting for appointments is carried out to the lack of consultation cited by the unions representing hospital ancillary staffs, including usually moderate bodies like NALGO. Thousands of people are wondering whether they will have a job comparable to and in the same area as their present job. On top of a sense of insecurity, there is the sense of injustice that the additional payments for extra reorganisational work which have been granted to local government offices have been denied to the National Health Service staffs.
It would be hard to imagine a worse climate in which to establish a new National Health Service, and it is especially hard to imagine that by 1st April 1974 reorganisation can be completed in anything but a nominal sense.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to have had the opportunity to be present in the House for his able maiden speech. I am sure that he will be an asset to his constituents and to the House to which we all welcome him.
The hon. Gentleman could not have made his maiden speech on a more important subject, for this is important not only to his constituents but to the country as a whole. We are dealing with one of the most important reforms of the last half century. It has involved the House of Commons in an enormous amount of work, and it has meant a great deal of work for those who are employed in the health service.
I wish to direct my comments more strictly to the motion than perhaps some speakers have done to date. The question of the composition of various bodies was settled one way or another during the Committee and Report stages of the legislation. The gravamen of this debate is whether the Secretary of State should in some unspecified way postpone the coming into being of the new National Health Service reorganisation.
I wish to cover two major aspects: first, why we need reorganisation at all; and, secondly, why it is thoroughly undesirable that that reorganisation should be delayed. We need reorganisation first to avoid the gaps and overlaps in the present system. An overlap is as bad as a gap, because if two authorities have the same responsibilities they are apt to leave the matter to each other, and neither does anything about it. This can also lead to duplication of effort.
The present management structure in many cases has fallen into a sad state of disarray. I know of large hospitals—and I regard a large hospital as one approaching 1,000 beds—where the hospital secretary does not always bother to attend meetings of the management committee. The management committee, despite its name, is not permitted to manage, and many of its alleged functions are usurped by the regional hospital board.
I know of cases where the disciplinary committee of a large hospital management committee receives unofficially from the regional hospital board information as to what decision it expects the disciplinary committee to make in cases which that committee is about to investigate, and also states what punishment it expects the disciplinary committee to inflict—and this occurs when the disciplinary committee has not even determined

whether an offence has been committed. This is the sort of corruption into which the present system has fallen.
The regional hospital board is supposed to determine priorities, but so bad are its accounting systems that what often happens is nothing of the kind. Anybody who has been in this House for any length of time knows that the annual race to spend money is almost as acute as the annual struggle to get it. We know that large sums of money are spent on unnecessary decoration merely because there is money left in a particular account at the end of the year whereas desperately needed facilities are not provided because the cash cannot be found. We know about the sort of staffing structure in which a hospital secretary can be put on a higher pay grade if more gardeners are employed in the environs of a hospital. If the totality of the wage bill on non-medical personnel can be increased, the pay and status of the hospital secretary can also be increased.
If the present structure is supposed to be about anything at all it is supposed to be primarily about capital priorities, which are among the most contentious of all in that most laymen and specialists tend to have too restricted a focus to allocate priorities in a rational way. There can also be the situation where regional boards totally ignore the most pressing medical needs because they become fascinated by one project.
I quote an interesting example from the region in which I live. In Exeter there is the West of England Eye Infirmary, which serves the ophthalmic needs of the whole of Devon except for Plymouth and Torbay. It serves not merely regular needs but also casualty needs. This hospital is not a complete unit. It relies on a wide range of facilities from the large general hospital situated next door to it. I refer to the Royal Devon and Exeter Infirmary. Those facilities include testing for blood groups, X-ray, radiology, anaesthetics and facilities for feeding nurses and patients. For instance, when there is an unpleasant car crash and somebody's head is badly damaged the multi-disciplinary attentions of ophthalmic, orthopaedic and possibly dental surgeons are needed. At the moment these are all available with only a road between them.
The regional hospital board is about to demolish the Royal Devon and Exeter


Hospital without making any arangements for the eye hospital except putatively the provision of a kitchen. Because a new hospital is being built about a mile away—incidentally, the road between it and the eye infirmary generally has static traffic upon it in the holiday season, so any question of moving personnel rapidly between the two does not arise—and that has been the focus of attention, the hospital board has literally forgotten the ophthalmic hospital and the needs of its patients and staff.
When complaints are made specifically by consultants at the ophthalmic hospital to the regional board they meet a blank wall. Occasionally there is the explanation that funds are not available. But no representations have been made by the regional board to local Members of Parliament that adequate funds are not available and asking that parliamentary channels be used to try to get extra funds.
There has been no effective consultation whatever between the regional hospital board and the consultants or other medical staff at this West of England Eye Infirmary, which will now be left isolated from the medical services on which it depends. Worse still, it is intended to put a complete traffic stream on both sides of it and to take away its garden so that the ring road runs immediately adjacent to it. The noise and vibration from that will come straight into the operating theatres where the most minute form of surgery in medical experience, with the possible exception of cerebral surgery, is supposed to take place.
I have no reason to believe that the South-West Regional Hospital Board is outstandingly incompetent compared with others throughout the United Kingdom, but I offer this as an example of the condition to which the present administration of hospital medicine in particular has disintegrated, and why we cannot go on postponing year after year organisational reforms which were already grossly overdue before they reached the statute book so recently.
It has been suggested that local authorities should have much greater control. Is not that exactly what the National Health Service was set up to get away from? We had local authority control over medical facilities until the inception

of the National Health Service. [Interruption.] That is exactly what we had, and its shortcomings were widely recognised. The functions of local government are not primarily medical functions. Certainly there should be representatives of local authorities on the area health authorities, and there are.
The new structure, through the community health councils, associates the public more directly with the multi-disciplinary arrangements of the National Health Service than ever before. The fact that the public can be represented more directly than indirectly through local government appointments in no way means that they are cut off. Under the new local government structure of first and second tier authorities there will be more than enough work for councillors to do. I do not anticipate that their main problem, or even part of it, will be having too little with which to occupy themselves.
It has been glaringly obvious in many parts of Britain, including the South-West, that there have been wide areas of overlap and gap between the hospital services and the local authority health and welfare services, and that the position of the general practitioner has tended to go by default. He or she may have good personal relationships with consultants in the National Health Service, but to a large extent the efficiency of the liaison between the community doctor—I use that as an expression for the general practitioner—and his consultant colleagues in hospitals has worked because of good personal relationships rather than an adequate structural relationship between them.
In some cases where general practitioners, though excellent at their functions, either have not been in an area very long or have personality clashes with some of their consultant colleagues in the hospital service, I believe that patients have suffered because there have not been the structural relationships on which anything of that kind ought to depend rather more than on personal relationships.
I believe that in many parts of Britain where there is a rapidly changing pattern of population, not just numbers, the new structure set up by the Act will respond more quickly to those changing needs.


I do not believe that doctors are necessarily the right people to determine priorities in medical expenditure, though certainly to advise on them, because under the present system dominance of personality has often had more to do with the allocation of funds than any objective criteria.
There is also a momentum of habit. If one lives in an area where the age balance is altering rapidly, where there is a greater proportion of elderly people each year, the needs of the psycho-geriatric and ophthalmic services and those to do with the degenerative diseases of the joints and bones have a greater social importance than some of the more fashionable and glamorous disciplines in medicine. The present hospital board structure has not been responsive to these changing needs.
The habit of mind that once geriatric patients can no longer spend the whole day in their own homes they must necessarily be incarcerated in a geriatric hospital dies hard. The obvious alternative is providing day out-patient facilities in geriatric hospitals for patients who are not bedridden, who can have the independence and self-respect of continuing to live in their own homes and attend out-patient sessions in geriatric hospitals by day. This can ease both the physical problems of providing the number of beds that would otherwise be required and the strain on the nursing staff who have to look after people who do not really need to be in geriatric beds but are allocated them because there is no alternative provision.
These are the flexibilities to which it is reasonable to believe the new structure will respond in a manner that the existing structure manifestly does not. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be deterred by the real and considerable difficulties that there are in this transitional stage. It has certainly been my experience that transitional difficulties are not generally eased by elongating the period of transition. Seen from beforehand, this often appears to be the case, but when the moment arrives it is not. Up to a year ago—and, for instance, for the last five—most farmers wanted the longest possible transition period while Britain was going into the EEC. Now

the balance of opinion has turned completely. The appeals that we get are to telescope the transition period. There is value in this analogy for the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
I can think of few things that would be less advantageous to the patient than to alter the time scale of the reorganisation when it is already in full flood, and not to synchronise that reorganisation with the reorganisation of local government, when the major purpose of both, in relation to each other, is that of inter-dependability. I hope that we do not lose sight of this interdependence. It is of immense importance. I hope that we manage through it to avoid the jealousies and the empire building which have so often gone on in the past, to the waste of resources and to the harm of the patient when there are gaps and overlaps.
The sooner that we have a reorganised National Health Service structure with its colleagues in a reorganised local government service aiming at the same goals the better.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I begin by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his well-informed and witty speech, which has the advantage that it will read well not only in HANSARD but in his local paper, a circumstance he will come to value more and more as election time draws nearer.
I intervene to ask only two questions, one of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite, about the community health councils. In the absence of my right hon. Friend, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will answer when she winds up. What is meant by the composition of the community health councils as my right hon. Friend described it? If I heard him aright, he said that all members of community health councils should be members of local authorities. I hope that he did not say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say?"] I do not remember that we argued that on Second Reading. I do not know why we now have this concept. I do not see any advantages in it. I recall that the Opposition were alert to the danger that when one appoints a watchdog one should not have too many


members of that watchdog overlapping with the membership of the bodies they are supposed to be watching over. It is a good principle.
I remember moving an amendment which the Secretary of State was gracious enough to accept on condition that I did not speak to it. It was an amendment to say that no one should be both a member of the community health council and a member of the area health authority. I would have thought that the same principle applied as did the objection to my right hon. Friend's suggestion that all members of community health councils should be members appointed by or of the local authority when, as we all agree, local authorities have substantial representation on the area health authorities. It must be wrong. That is my question to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will reassure me.
To the Minister I ask: what is the time scale for setting up the community health councils? I recall raising this point on Second Reading and being assured in the most specific manner by the Secretary of State that there would be no question of any substantive decision being taken about the regional or area health authority until the watchdogs were in operation. This is right, and we must insist on it. But I should like to be reassured, because the Secretary of State has not even yet asked for nominations to the community health councils. What worries me is that substantive decisions may be taken by the authorities before the community health councils are established. That would be unacceptable.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This reorganisation is the greatest series of botched-up operations since the days when barbers took blood from patients suffering from anaemia. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will forgive me for not taking up their remarks, because I wish to press most of my attack against the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech failed to deal with these crises. It was mainly a Second Reading speech. It was not what we normally expect of him.
I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of doing precisely what we accused him of

doing in Standing Committee. It is not the Act itself that we are criticising in the motion—we are criticising the way in which he has administered it.
The right hon. Gentleman is guilty of dictatorial decisions and of riding roughshod over genuine consultations, and, although he said in his opening speech today that he was satisfied with the consultations with the trades unions he will know that the National Association of Local Government Officers has pointed out to every hon. Member that there are 80,000 NALGO members
suffering from a bewildering lack of consultation, a clear mess-up of the way senior appointments have been advertised and handled, a Government veto on extra payments for those senior officers carrying out extensive extra work, and for the great majority of them still massive uncertainty as to what is to happen to them on April 1.
That is the charge I level and I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will be able to give us more satisfaction than did the Secretary of State in his opening comments.
One of the gross injustices of the re organisation is, as usual, its effect on all the nursing professions. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I have asked him question after question about pay and conditions, but when it comes to the nursing professions I always get the same answer—that it has nothing to do with him; it is the Whitley Council's decision. But what has happened in the reorganisation and the appointment of nursing officers is that because the Whitley Council has been unable to reach agreement the right hon. Gentleman has again used it as a puppet. He has gone over the top and made decisions about which the nurses are totally dissatisfied.
Why is it that when the Whitley Council machinery is overridden it is always the health service sectors into which the Government step and take charge? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the very first time that procedure occurred in the history of all Whitley Councils was in 1957, and again it was the National Health Service workers who suffered. Once again the right hon. Gentleman has issued a diktat because the Nursing and Midwives Whitley Council has reached deadlock. When it comes to the appointment of regional authority or area health authority nursing officers there is to be no arbitration, despite the fact that in


every case previously when nurses have been unable to get justice from the Whitley Council it has gone to arbitration, not once, but dozens of times. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not time to arbitrate and do these things before April 1st, and because of that the motion is worded as it is, to enable him to find enough time to do the right thing.
I find a considerable amount of interest in the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most formidable members of the Government Front Bench, but he always presents himself as a "Jekyll and Hyde" in health matters. As Dr. Jekyll, he shows considerable compassion for the disabled and for those in long-stay hospitals, and his record is one that no one would be ashamed of. But he seems to revel in his Mr. Hyde rôle, in bashing the nurses. He does it more in sorrow than in anger, but he does not desist. His policies are already having effect on the Central Middlesex Hospital. Nurses are not eating mid-day meals because of economic difficulties. What has happened is that in two years the price of the main mid-day meal at the Central Middlesex Hospital has risen by 75 per cent. In the meantime, the pay of the nurses has been restrained by phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 of this Government's policy.
When it comes to making appointments of regional and area health nursing officers, it must be remembered that nursing salaries start at the top and that until we have the top right we shall have a job to do anything at the bottom and with all intermediate grades. I quote the example of the University Hospital Group in Cardiff. The nursing officer there has a budget of £5·5 million a year, and a staff of 6,000. There are another 600 nurses in training. The nursing officer now gets less than £5,000 a year. Is there anywhere in industry or commerce where a person with that kind of responsibility gets so low a reward?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something about the Whitley Council breakdown. In the reorganised National Health Service nurses are supposed to be equal members of the team. We find in the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority, for example, that there is a difference of £2,400 between the pay of the nurse in the team and that of the administrative officer. That cannot be

fair. It cannot give the right kind of background.

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I may say to the hon. Gentleman as mildly as possible that his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) did not choose to raise any of these matters when he opened this debate. Discussions with the nurses are still in progress. There is an offer to them on the table, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman will know.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful for that intervention. However, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in a short debate of this kind we try to cover as much ground as possible but that we cannot cover all the subjects.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked the Pay Board to look into this case. The nurses' pay claim is with the Pay Board, and the right hon. Gentleman has little jurisdiction over the board.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member carries a great deal of authority. However, on this occasion he is wrong. He is talking about nurses. In fact, his argument about the salaries of nurses and the Whitley Council is connected with the new nursing management posts. The offer to them has not gone to the Pay Board. It is on the table and under discussion with the nurses.

Mr. Pavitt: I am again grateful for that intervention. I was speaking only this morning to representatives of the Royal College of Nurses, and they were concerned about the effect of the rest of the reorganisation proposals upon nurses' pay. I was told that the Pay Board has the matter under consideration.
In Committee I accused the Secretary of State—and I do so again—of being hospital-oriented. In drawing the boundaries of the districts of area health authorities, my accusation has been proved right. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the example of my own area. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Acton (Mr. Spearing) have made representations on the same point. Brent and Harrow is the area that I represent. In this case the joint liaison committee has been no more than a piece of window dressing. Any attempt to make representations has been overridden once again by the Secretary of State.
I have a letter from the secretary of the joint liaison committee. He writes:
The Department state in their letter indicating the decision of the Secretary on this matter that 'there has been the fullest possible consultation at local level between Joint Liaison Committees and other interested parties including the Department.' This is not so in the case of the Harrow and Brent Health Authorities.
The JLC of that area tried to get in contact with and consult the JHC of the regional health authority, only to be turned down.
There are four districts in the hospital catchment areas of Brent, Central Middlesex, St. Mary's, Northwick Park and Edgware General. The hon. and qualified Member for the Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) recently made a plea for closer liaison between the social services and the local health and welfare services. It is this that makes a nonsense of the way that the reorganisation has gone. In my area not only district management teams but community health councils will be drawn up on areas of hospital catchment which cut across the boundaries of the welfare and social services activities, and there will be a completely unnatural community basis.
In the London borough of Brent a 33 per cent. overlap will mean that 90,000 residents will find themselves outwith the areas which will fit in with the community responsibilities that they have. It means that there has been a complete breakdown of confidence on the joint liaison committee, with the powers that it has to change any decisions made arbitrarily by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State answered a question of mine by saying that the area health authorities could alter this later on. I have gathered since, from further points that he has made, that this is very unlikely and that present boundaries will not be altered after 1st April.
The staff chaos, which is becoming even more confused, is at its worst in the local health authority sector. The uncertainty means that everyone is looking for a way out of the new service since the local authority departments will pay more than the area health authorities pay for similar responsibilities. Already in my own borough a quarter of the staff attached to the health authority have moved over to posts in the local authority.
We have an even greater nonsense in the case of dentists. The Government's proposals are supposed to come into being on 1st April, yet area dental officers are not to be appointed until well past the end of April, although district officers are to be appointed in March. In other words, the area officers will be appointed well after the district officers have been appointed to their posts. The confusion resulting from that decision will make the whole situation confoundedly difficult.
The Secretary of State will have had many representations about administrative staff. I have not time to go into them all because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. But the administrative situation is in such a state that the new system cannot possibly begin on 1st April. It is clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to get half of it going until about six months after 1st April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) quoted a case of dissatisfaction. I quote a similar case. It concerns Mr. X, a treasurer with 25 years' service with a hospital management committee, for most of the time with responsibility for nine hospitals. The new district will contain precisely the same nine hospitals. The finance department will have the same responsibilities with only a 20 per cent. payroll increase. But Mr. X is not even short-listed—and he has not even been short-listed for four comparable posts. Having done 25 years' service, he naturally feels very bitter. His situation is repeated time and time again. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his staff commission is not consulting sufficiently. When short lists are being drawn up and when suggestions are being made, in the final analysis the persons concerned do not feel that they are getting justice. In fact, justice is not being seen to be done.
The same gentleman has been working a six-day week since September 1972, with no additional pay. The Secretary of State explains that away by quoting the Government's policy on phase 3. But when a local government officer is paid and a health officer is not paid, the Government ought to find some way round the problem even if it means bending the rules a little. Mr. X has done 60 days unpaid work.
The Secretary of State knows that although the scheduled starting date is 1st April we shall no doubt still be muddling through in May, June and July. Already in circulars he is indicating that it will be nine months in many cases before the new system gets going. The great benefit to the patient is that in spite of administrative muddle those with clinical responsibilities will not alter very much. They will still be doing the same job in the same places, despite the inevitable administrative chaos. But 800,000 workers are experiencing this upheaval, and all of them are in a tremendous confusion, including consultants and general practitioners, dentists, opticians, and even those affected by the order which the right hon. Gentleman laid this week concerning family practitioner committees.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Secretary of State argued that the reorganisation of the health service was necessary because of the managerial inefficiency in the present set-up. If his case has any validity, he should give himself and his Department time to do the job properly. I take only the argument about consultation. Anyone visiting the headquarters of the BMA at Tavistock House sees shoals and shoals of circulars about which there is supposed to be consultation, but there has not yet been time for consultation. The Department is scattering information, and information is not consultation. The right hon. Gentleman should give himself more time. He should hold a thorough inquiry into what is going on, not on the Act but on the arrangements stemming from it, so that he is able to put things right, thus avoiding later adjustments in the reorganised health service because of the bad way in which the reorganisation has been carried out, which may take years to put right.

6 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that there is anxiety among those employed in the National Health Service. It would be surprising if that were not so, confronted as we are by such a massive reorganisation. We must ask whether it is likely that the anxiety would be diminished by postponing and extending the whole mas-

sive arrangement. It seems that that would add a lot more to the anxieties.
It is surprising that during the whole course of the debate, except for one period of 20 minutes, there has not been one Welsh Member present. I say this because I think back with feeling to the long debates we held in the House and in the Welsh Grand Committee on this subject. We were told then that this was a matter of immense importance to the people of Wales, as it is. It was so important, so it was said, that there should be a separate Welsh Bill. Opposition Members said that there was inadequate time on the Floor of the House to debate these significant matters. Yet today the Opposition are launching this attack without any one present to press the Welsh point of view.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we did have contributions from Welsh Members there is a possibility that he and his hon. Friends would support them in the Lobby tonight or that his right hon. Friend would change his mind?

Mr. Edwards: We will always judge contributions by individual Members on their merits. I am simply pointing out that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is present, and was present at the start of the debate, no doubt to listen to the contributions and criticisms made by Welsh Members. They have been non-existent, as have the hon. Members who might have made them. I can only assume from that that there is broad satisfaction among Welsh Labour Members with what is taking place.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). He always makes a formidable contribution. We know that he is capable on occasions of bowling very fast balls, as he did the other night. I thought today's was one of the least convincing speeches I have ever heard him make. He seemed to be getting close to a dangerous obsession with numbers. It is a terribly easy game to play. It has become increasingly common to say that on any committee or group or in any party organisation or any representative body there must be a given percentage of people matching their proportion in the population. This was clearly the inference behind the right hon.


Gentleman's remarks when he criticised the inadequate representation of women.
We are on a slippery path if we carry the argument too far. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the salutary tale of the Democratic Party in the United States. At the last Presidential election it got itself into the position that it was less concerned with the individual contributions that might be made and more concerned with proportions. The result was devastating for that party. We should be more concerned with the contribution that can be made to these area health authorities instead of looking for strictly numerical proportions.
I have argued that in some parts of the country it might be appropriate to have rather larger authorities with a greater degree of local authority representation. I have argued that because it seems that in a tightly-knit urban community it may well be that three or four local authority representatives will be familiar with the area they represent, while in a far-flung part of the country, such as Dyfed in West Wales, individual local authority representatives may not be familiar with areas that may be 50, 60 or even 80 miles away.
It therefore seemed important that we should have flexibility in approaching this problem. It seems that the criterion on which we should judge the whole scheme is whether the people who have been selected represent a wide variety of skills and talents so that they can bring the proper critical faculties to bear on the decisions and the administrative work that will be undertaken by the administrators within the health service.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is on a fair point, and I would not like to dispute the logic of his remark. But I would not want it to be thought that I was trying to do a strict numerical Gallup Poll. What I wanted to get across was the fact that every single regional health authority chairman in England and 82 out of the 90 chairmen of area health authorities in England—I do not know the position in Wales—come from the hospital service. That cannot be a proper balance, which is what the White Paper said there ought to be.

Mr. Edwards: As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there are a variety of other talents and experiences. The right hon.

Gentleman produced a lot of other figures in which he seemed to be pressing this argument to a dangerous degree. I am glad that he is now perhaps drawing back.

Mr. Silkin: No.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be a substantial majority of local authority and trade union representatives on the authorities. I note the point, but it does not seem to be necessarily the best qualification for effective membership of area health authorities. I entirely concede that these groups of people should be represented and that we should like to see able trade unionists and local authority representatives where this is possible. It does not seem to be the prime criterion when selecting people to fulfil this function.
I turn to the argument that the whole thing should be postponed. My right hon. Friend has said that this was probably the largest management enterprise ever undertaken. He pointed out the importance of making it coincide with the equally massive reorganisation of local government. It would be totally catastrophic if we postponed at this point. Not only would we find ourselves in the extraordinary position of having done away with a whole group of authorities which have responsibility while putting nothing in their place, but the chaos that would be created would have to be seen to be believed. Anyone who has ever been involved in reorganising anything knows that it is always tempting to put it off. That is almost always a mistake.
We have been debating and thrashing out this issue for almost as long as some of us remember. Government after Government have turned their attention to these problems. If we are successfully to implement the new structure, we have to get on with it within a given timetable. That is the only discipline which remains to ensure that the new system comes into effect smoothly and efficiently.
It was an extraordinary and deplorable suggestion by the right hon. Member for Deptford that the community councils should be filled only with members of local authorities. I was glad it was attacked by his right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. May-hew), who, like me, could hardly believe


his ears. As he said, it was not previously a Labour Party proposal. I have only to look to my own area and the contribution in knowledge and experience made by the voluntary bodies to see what a disastrous proposal it would be.
For example, the local society which takes an interest in the mentally handicapped is immensely knowledgeable, does an enormous amount of good work in the area and is to be represented on the new community councils in the area. That is absolutely right: it will make an immense contribution. There are other voluntary bodies of a similar kind. It would be deplorable if, because of some rigid Front Bench theory, groups like this were to be removed and the community councils which are supposed to represent the interests of local people in the broadest sense were to be restricted to local authority membership—membership of people who may have no particular knowledge in this sphere. That suggestion would have disastrous results.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: Much reference has been made to a democratic health service, and Conservative Members have asked what the phrase meant. The greatest defect in the present health service—the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave vivid examples of this—is lack of public accountability. The new Act perpetuates that lack of accountability to exactly the same extent as the present health service.
The hospital service, with which I have been closely associated, has, to my mind and obviously to that of the hon. Member for Tiverton, worked largely in a vacuum; certainly the executive councils have. But the executive councils within the general medical committees will still work in that same vacuum. The present proposals are so hospital-orientated that exactly the same defects in the present organisation will be carried over to the new.
It is not enough for the Government to say that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. We all know the difficulty of getting answers to important and fundamental local problems if the only channel for processing complaints is the few opportunities that one has here. So my first concern is lack of public

accountability, which goes together with lack of public control.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to the formation of certain district councils. All of us in the Greater London area were concerned at the suggestion that London should be treated differently from the regions, in that the area health authorities would not coincide with the London borough boundaries. Having fought and lost that battle in the House and in Committee, we then had the ridiculous position of which my right hon. Friend has quoted an example—Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham are three boroughs but in that same area there will be four districts based not on borough boundaries but on hospital catchment areas.
There could be some justification for that if the catchment areas were so closely associated with those districts that this was the predominant function that the hospital was performing. But in the four districts concerned, despite the fiercest opposition by the local authorities and one of the teaching hospitals, one finds little evidence of this. Only 30 per cent. of St. Thomas's patients come from the district in which it is placed, and only 39 per cent. of Guy's Hospital's patients. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this matter further. It is causing great concern in my area and greatly affects the effective functioning of the community councils.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) made great play with the part that voluntary organisations have to play within the community councils. But the voluntary organisations—the local councils of social service, the mental health organisations, the associations dealing with the handicapped and the elderly—are based, both financially and geographically, on the borough boundaries. The same boundaries are obviously the natural basis for the districts.
This glaring anomaly was very much resented by the three borough councils I have mentioned, and they were joined in their objection by one of the hospitals concerned. I urge, along the lines of the motion, that all these matters show the need for taking more time to consider the operation of the service rather than steamrollering it through in order to meet a timetable which will mean a lack of time


for discussions and the making of appointments, and will thus ensure that a service which should stand for a considerable time will need reorganisation again before it comes into being.

6.20 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I hope that my right hon. Friend knows how grateful we are in Plymouth, because, 30 years after the scheme was first suggested, the first sod was cut by the Lord Mayor, last Friday, for our new district hospital. This scheme is coming to fruition on a lovely site, and it will benefit many people.
We should give more consideration to management committees. Hon. Members have been running them down. Management committees have held the fort for many years and our thanks are due for all their work in the past. I deplore the motion's suggestion that we should postpone reorganisation of the health service. Postponement would mean more uncertainty, and there is already enough of that. It is also suggested that there should be a full-scale inquiry. I doubt whether we could find anyone willing to undertake such an inquiry, because he would feel that his work would be wasted. There is now a Parliamentary Commissioner to look into matters relating to the health service. Anyone can get in touch with him and put forward their views or complaints.
I wish to raise a point about health visitors. The community health services are worried about the future of the service because it is felt that there is a new gap between the community health service and the community social services. I refer to home nursing, midwifery, chiropody and family planning, all of which have been local services. There is real anxiety among the health visitors employed in these services, as they consider that it may be very difficult for them to maintain their work because a vital part of it has been co-operation with the social services and the education service. It would therefore be helpful to have an assurance on this point.
I am pleased that patients now spend less and less time in hospital and receive more nursing at home. The community service staff fear that they will have to fight for recognition and for resources

which will now be under the control of members and officers, who, perhaps, will have no understanding of anything outside hospital work.
Administrators, treasurers, doctors and nurses in the new service will have equal authority and status, but the salary scales imposed on nursing appointments, after rejection by the Staff Side of the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council, fall short of those offered to administrators by nearly £3,000 at the top and £1,200 in the lower scales.
It is interesting to note that even in the smallest districts administrators are to be paid almost the same as nursing officers in the large regions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this matter. It seems that in making appointments there have been rather unfortunate decisions by the Staff Commission, which, I am told, because of these decisions has begun to lose the confidence of those who have been appointed.
Under Section 19 of the Act, car allowances will not be protected for health visitors, who also do not yet know what superannuation they will be offered, what will be the compensation arrangements, and how the appeal system will work. Health visitors are still worried about the disappearance of their profession from the statute book by the repeal of Section 24 of the National Health Service Act 1946.
The reply I received to a Question on this matter was not very satisfactory because it referred only to the inclusion of nursing in Section 2(2)(c) of the reorganisation Act. The activities of the health visitors under Section 24 of the 1946 Act were reinstated in Section 2 of the new Act. For the record, health visitors are not nurses. They do not do nursing; they do health visiting, as their name proclaims. They are very worried about their future status. I wish to emphasise that point.
I again pay tribute to those who have worked on management committee of hospitals. I served for nine years on the hospital management committee of the London County Council. Members of hospital management committees have done magnificent work and have given up their time fully and freely to the service of their fellow citizens. This should not be forgotten.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I am conscious that time is running out. This is one of the ridiculous ways in which the House of Commons behaves. When we have a massive issue like the health of the nation, and a service which I believe to be the greatest service we have created we must, because of rules and regulations, cramp our views in as quickly and tightly as possible. However, after listening to the Secretary of State, I feel that even if we had a week to discuss this matter he would remain implacable. He is not prepared to give one inch. He is enshrined in his philosophy—which is remarkable for a Tory—that Whitehall knows best and that no one else must contribute.
On many past occasions in Opposition, Conservative Members unjustifiably accused Labour Governments of being unwilling to discuss and debate proposals, but in this debate speaker after speaker on the Government side has demonstrated that the Government will do what suits their purpose. They have shown that they accept the philosophy that Whitehall knows best and that no one else may contribute to the proposals. It does not even matter to the Government what the political views are of those outside the House who wish to contribute to discussion of these proposals. If there are to be changes in which people are involved, it would be far better to spend another six months debating the issue and listening to submissions from those who feel strongly about it, rather than say that the date is fixed and that then the new arrangements will begin.
The right hon. Gentleman, like all Tory Members, has forgotten that reorganisation of the health service is not about committees, consultants, or specialists; it is about ordinary folk. This point has been missed by the Conservatives.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that the objective is to have a new organisation coterminous with the local authority boundaries. If this is so, and if it is right for perhaps four-fifths of the nation, why should it not also be right for the Greater London area? Under the proposals the new organisation does not fit in with the local authority boundaries in the Greater

London area. What has the right hon. Gentleman got against the Greater London area?
In my constituency it is not a political issue per se. A deputation from my constituency went to see the Under-Secretary of State. The men and women in the deputation had given up their time and taken a day from work to meet the Minister with officers from the local council. The meeting began with the terms of reference being read. The deputation was then told—and this confirmed their apprehensions—"There is nothing I can do. The Secretary of State will not let me." This is neither democratic nor sensible. Under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 local authority social services should have close links with social and health functions. People believed that that would take place with the reorganisation of the health service in the Greater London area.
There are many absurdities. For example, the London borough of Ealing, with a population of 300,000, is being chopped up for the purposes of reorganisation, whereas Hillingdon, larger in area but with a population of 250,000, is not. No wonder people are desperately concerned.
Again, why is it that the London boroughs within the Inner London Education Authority's area are to have two representatives on the family practitioner committees, whereas boroughs outside the ILEA area, which are themselves local education authorities, are allowed to have only one?
Neither the Conservatives nor the Labour supporters in Ealing understand the situation. The Conservative and Labour parties in Ealing are at one on this, as are the Conservative and Labour councillors. I ask the Under-Secretary of State not to assume the arrogance of the Secretary of State in his reply. I ask him to say that he is prepared to examine the problem so that when the new service is launched in Ealing it will be with some endeavour to see that it is a good service, without the bitterness and enmity towards the Secretary of State which, regrettably, exists at the moment.

6.31 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his


maiden speech, particularly as I agreed with everything he said. We look forward to many more equally fluent, witty and informed speeches from him.
Secondly, I want to reply to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). My right hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Mr. John Silkin) was suggesting three possible matters for discussion by the inquiry we would like to see set up, but he has authorised me to say that it was his own particular view that he was expressing.
When the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill, he said that its whole purpose was to provide an improved service for the patients, and he repeated it today. But, for this to happen, the service must reflect and be responsive both to the needs of the people it serves, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), and to the needs of the people who work in it. I think our debate has shown that on both these counts the newly-reorganised service is not succeeding.
The voices of people served by the service are to be suppressed, with the emphasis upon selection and ministerial appointment instead of upon election. A similar arrogance of attitude is shown in the lack of consultation with those who work in and for the service, and taken together these are a recipe not so much for reorganisation as for disorganisation. They cannot provide, as the right hon. Gentleman intended, an improved service for the patients.
We warned the Government during the passage of the Bill that they could treat the National Health Service as if it were a biscuit factory with the Secretary of State's appointees as the board of directors. It is about the care of the sick, not the management of the sick. We stressed the need for continuous concentration on the administrative staff, who are the keystone of the service, and particularly during this critical transitional period.
As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the reorganisation will involve the work of nearly 1 million people in a service costing the taxpayers over £2,500

million a year. This Act has created an intricate, complex piece of machinery, and, like one of the early flying machines, it crashed as soon as it left the ground. The pilot and the designers should have given it greater thought.
My right hon. Friend has illustrated the basic similarity between the new regional health authorities and area health authorities and the old oligarchic, undemocratic, self-perpetuating hospital boards and hospital management committees. The Secretary of State reminds me of one of those apothecaries who practised in the Middle Ages—limited in vision but obstinate in purpose. After prolonged stirring and mixing, he finally produced with a great flourish a potion for treating the National Health Service, but it is no better than the one the patient has taken for years, except that it has a different name, and, in fact, the patient becomes a great deal worse.
Where are the promised new brooms to sweep the service clean? We find that the identikit chairman of a new regional health authority appointed by the Secretary of State will be a middle-aged male, a holder of the British Empire Medal, and he will have no qualifications at all to work in any branch of the service. The Secretary of State's appointees as chairmen of the area health authorities include less than one-third local democratically-elected representatives, and some token trade union representatives of the people who actually work in the service. Presumably this is because they have not the drive, humanity, judgment and diplomacy which the Secretary of State said he was looking for. So, how can the Government's new management be more efficient than the old when it will simply be the mixture as before?
My right hon. Friend mentioned the dearth of women amongst the Secretary of State's appointees. The figures are extremely revealing. Of the regional health authority chairmen, there will only be two women out of 14. Of the area health authority chairmen, there are only 11 women out of the 88 appointees so far. Out of a total of 217 appointees to the regional health authorities, only 47 are women. I am not advocating a specific quota for women, but I cannot believe that, in a population the majority of which is female, a larger number of women with suitable qualifications was not available for this important work,


especially as at least half, if not more than half, of the people who work in the service are women.
I now come to the serious effect of the reorganisation on the senior administrative staff, whose traditional dedication and loyalty we take for granted. Their morale is desperately low, and the right hon. Gentleman must accept the fact, unpleasant though it is, that there is a crisis of confidence within the service today, as has been well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). Because of the deplorable lack of consultation and information, there is widespread anxiety and uncertainty about future posts and new salary scales. The National and Local Government Officers' Association representing key administrative, professional and technical staffs, will be lobbying Parliament next week. It has written to every Member already. It wants to ensure a cohesive management and staffing structure. The right hon. Gentleman started off on the wrong foot when he arbitrarily fixed the salaries of the chief officers, and it was only after NALGO protested and saw the Prime Minister that an adjustment was made.
The right hon. Gentleman is also aware of the widespread dissatisfaction about the selection procedures and the method of short-listing for the appointment of senior hospital management staff and senior nursing staff to new posts in the new service. Several hundred top posts are involved, some with salaries of £8,000, yet the right hon. Gentleman claimed on Second Reading that the purpose of the Staff Commission was to safeguard the interests of the staff.
As a result of all this, last week the right hon. Gentleman admitted to the House, in what must be the understatement of the Session that:
Some officers in local authority health departments are not showing keen enthusiasm to join the new health service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1067.]
The fact is that a great many are taking jobs in local government because there is no guarantee as to their future conditions of employment in the new service or

of the protection of their present pay and conditions of service.
Perhaps I can bring this serious situation nearer home to the right hon. Gentleman, right on to his political doorstep. The Leeds area health authority is to lose no fewer than four of its top community health service administrators, including the chief administrative officer. They are going to work in other local government departments. One of them, Mr. John Maury, has said:
I do not know what my prospects would have been had I remained here. So when the local government structures were announced I had to make up my mind whether to opt for something I coupld see or for some thing I could not see. Security was doubtful.
Another chief health service administrative officer from the West Riding, who is leaving, with his deputy, for local government, has said:
If we had stayed here we would have had no idea, either on April 1st or in the future, where we would work, what we would have done, how much we would have been paid in the National Health Service.
I could give many more examples. It is tragic that the valuable experience and expertise of so many senior administrative staff is being lost to the National Health Service at this very critical time. As for the rest of the staff, too many of them are afraid of being trampled underfoot by the mighty, all-powerful elephant under the Secretary of State's remote control. If one talks to nurses, dentists, medical officers of health, general practitioners, social workers and nonprofessional health service workers, one finds confusion, bewilderment and anxiety about their future rôle in the National Health Service, to helping which they have dedicated their lives. They are concerned about their inadequate representation on the health authorities.
It is 25 years since the Labour Government proudly created the National Health Service. Under the present Government we have witnessed increasing and unprecedented unrest among people who staff the service, culminating in the present industrial action of the ambulance men. Today we are trying to save the service, the patients and the staff from bureaucratic management and all that goes with it. The Government should postpone the introduction of the new service on April Fool's Day. We want a full-scale inquiry into this reorganisation,


a reorganisation which is based on a regressive and undemocratic Act which will do irreparable harm to the National Health Service.

6.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Like the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I hope he is enjoying the congratulations raining upon him. They are not quite so liable to be repeated. Nevertheless, we are quite genuine in our congratulations. For one delicious moment I thought we were about to be led into a real tourist visit to his marvellous constituency, but then the hon. Gentleman brought us back to the nitty-gritty of the National Health Service reorganisation, and he proved himself to be extremely well informed about that.
I should like to deal quickly with one of the hon. Gentleman's main points. I cannot hold out much hope of sectors in his area each having a community health council. But, although sectorisation will be necessary in his part of the world, community health councils will nevertheless have a valuable rôle in preventing the sort of polarisation which tends to happen in fairly large areas and in giving a genuine community service.
In addressing ourselves to the Opposition motion, as we must, the House is facing one particular difficulty. There are two quite different aspects of the motion. The first is the grave concern that it expresses about the way that reorganisation is taking place—in other words, the implementation of policy—and subordinate to that, but very much part of the motion, is a broad regret about the composition of the authorities, the method of their appointment, the fact that they are not elected, and so on.
The aspect about the composition raises again the whole philosophical policy argument which has been going on for a very long time. We have debated it at length. We debated it on Second Reading of the Bill, as it then was, and extensively on Report and, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) knows, in Committee. But this matter goes back very much further than that. I remind the House of the time scale which has been involved on precisely this philosophical point, which

the right hon. Gentleman wants us to look at again, to debate and to take up time upon. I think that the House will agree that it is quite out of proportion and unreasonable to ask us to spend more time on this matter.
This matter started probably two or three years before 1968, when the Department first began its internal thoughts under the right hon. Gentleman's Government. They had extensive discussions with interested groups on this subject, leading to their first Green Paper in 1968, which took a tentative view, certainly, that the National Health Service should be unified as to its three parts. They then tended to think that it should be outside local government, although because the Royal Commission had not reported and various other matters were being debated, such as the reorganisation of the social services, they were somewhat tentative in their view that reorganisation should take place outside local government.
However, two years later we come to the second Green Paper, of 1970. The right hon. Gentleman's Government, and the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), took a clear and explicit position that the service should be unified as to its three parts outside local government. They gave a list of London boroughs which should be incorporated in the new area health authorities. They are very similar to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman was criticising my right hon. Friend for postulating this afternoon. We have all been over that ground previously.
We then come to the present Government's entry to office and our consultative document. That very much took up the position which the right hon. Member for Coventry, East had postulated in his Green Paper about a year previously, and confirmed that we thought that the best thing to do was to reorganise the National Health Service outside local government, which the Act embodies. It was at this point—previously one might have expected it—that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East reneged on the Green Paper of which he was the author and switched everything. What took place in 1968, the two Green Papers and previous consultations was completely wrong, and the Opposition wanted a system in which the health services


were to be entirely reorganised within local government.
That was typically perverse of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East; but I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Deptford, in his studied and commendable moderation, has taken a slightly more balanced view. He saw the difficulties of going wholesale against the original position of his predecessor. In Committee he took a very reasonable position, which was that in an ideal world there ought to be close links between the health service and local authority and there was the argument about democracy as well. But he was content to acknowledge that the ideal was far into the future, and to say that the first tenative steps in that direction should perhaps be a slightly larger number of local government appointees to the area health authorities. But further than that he did not go.
But now we come to December 1973, and a most radical departure, even from the two variations of the Labour Party's philosophical vision, was introduced today. It takes one's breath away to see what the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing: that most area health authorities and regional health authority members should be appointed from the ranks of local government and the trade unions. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) pointed out, this is associated with community health councils entirely to be appointed by local government, and local government exercising surveillance and control over these partly nominated area health authorities.
Incidentally, where does democracy come into trade union appointments? Is appointment of the trade union representatives to be made by the block vote? Is this the democratic element which we are to have introduced into the appointment of area health authorities? Under these radical proposals, are the community health councils to exercise authority over the appointee area health authorities? If so, what happens if community health council members fall out with the trade union appointee members of an area health authority? What sort of nonsense will emerge from this arrangement?
But then the right hon. Gentleman assured us that he has not introduced any very radical changes; he has merely suggested that a special inquiry should be set up to examine his proposals, which would sit for a long time. If the inquiry found, as it well might, in favour of the Green Paper No. 1, Labour 1968 version, we should be right back to where we started and all this time would have been wasted. The philosophical argument goes backwards and forwards, and everybody is kept waiting.

Mr. John Silkin: I enjoy the Under-Secretary's fun as much as anybody, but I want to correct his facts. He said that I suggested—he ought to look at HANSARD tomorrow and he will then no doubt withdraw what he said—that the community health councils should be superior to the area health authorities. I did not suggest that at all. I suggested that they should manage the district management teams.

Mr. Alison: I certainly accept that variation. But, in a sense, the right hon. Gentleman has made the picture even more gloomy, because one of the great advantages of the new scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) pointed out with such insight and eloquence, is that the district management team, which is closest to the ground and involves doctors in management, will be the crucible in which key policies affecting a patient's life are formulated. This team will now be managed by the community health council appointed by local government. But what is the point of having a district management team, deliberately made up of a cross-representation of professional folk who are involved with the key issues of health care, if it is managed by appointees of local government? If a court of inquiry were considering this aspect—it might not have to spend very long thinking about it—I am pretty certain that it would come up once again with the sort of solution which rational men, shouldered with responsibility—such as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and ourselves, once in office—have all agreed about; namely, that unification should take place with intercommunicating links with local government, but firmly outside it for reasons to do both with the budget and with the


scale of operations of health care, and starting at the level of the region, which at present is much bigger than any existing local government unit, although it may not be bigger in the future. To link the two together at this stage would be entirely impractical.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that, whether trade unionists working within the service are nominated at a branch meeting, at a regional council meeting or by the democratically-elected national executive of a union, such appointments are a damn sight more democratic than his right hon. Friend appointing a village squire or a local industrialist?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt an expert in the way people are democratically appointed in the trade union movement. But democracy must be seen to be working, and what the public understands by democracy in the trade union movement is what happens in the Trades Union Congress every year with the block vote. That creates the same impression as we get when it is suggested that some of the area health authority members should be appointed by the trade unions. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who said that it is a pity we have so little time. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have raised a number of queries, and I must, therefore, leave this rather philosophical theme and turn to specific points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) talked about the West of England Eye Infirmary. I am glad to be able to confirm to him that after reorganisation the infirmary will be part of the Exeter and Mid-Devon district, and as such will share the multi-disciplinary management provided for all hospitals in the district.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East raised an important point about community health councils. I think he will recall my right hon. Friend's reply to him on this subject on 17th July, but I confirm that our aim is still to establish community health councils by 1st April, when the new authorities will take over operational responsibility for the reorganised services. At the worst, this will happen in the month of April, if not by 1st April.

I think that the fears which he reasonably pinpointed—namely, that authorities might be taking crucial decisions on issues affecting the consumer—will not be realised, if the time scale which we anticipate and for which we are planning is met.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman now says that there will be a further month in which decisions can be taken by the area health authority and the regional health authority, with no watchdog appointed.

Mr. Alison: I again use the form of words which my right hon. Friend used in his reply; that it is our aim to have them appointed by 1st April. The only qualification is the necessity to be cautious about the use of the future tense. We cannot be completely and categorically certain in advance whether we shall succeed, particularly if the motion which is now being debated is repeated and if there are delays, but our aim is to get these people in post by 1st April. We think that we shall succeed. That is not an absolute and irrevocable commitment, but we will do our best.
There was a good deal of talk about consultation. I must again remind the House that there has been very extensive consultation, not only by the Staff Commission in relation to the relatively small number of senior appointments before 1st April 1974, but also about all the staff who will be transferred. The importance of consultation about transfers has been stressed throughout, and that is taking place in preparation for the transfer schemes. Under a circular which we have issued very recently, authorities have to consult, first, with the staff as a whole or in groups having similar geographical or functional interests; secondly, with appropriate trade unions, professional organisations or staff associations; and, thirdly, in some cases, as necessary, with individual officers. I am confident that extensive consultation is taking place.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet) rose——

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will see that I have only two minutes left, so I must ask him to write to me about what is causing him anxiety. I believe that we have as clean a record as it is possible to achieve on the matter of consultation, not


only with the professional organisations but by the Staff Commission.
In view of the time which has already elapsed in considering the Bill and the very considerable thought which has been given to these philosophical and policy matters, upon which the right hon. Member for Deptford laid such stress this afternoon, in view of the fact that far greater uncertainty would arise for staff if we sought once again to postpone the implementation of an agreed Act, in view of the fact that morale is crucially affected by the period of uncertainty and we want to end this as soon as possible, and in view

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Armstrong, Ernest
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Austick, David
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Fred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Harry
Judd, Frank


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kerr, Russell


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Forrester, John
Latham, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lawson, George


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E.
Leonard, Dick


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McGuire, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Machin, George


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)
Hatton, F.
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsden, F.


Davidson, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Horam, John
Meacher, Michael


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William



Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

of the fact that we have made a good start, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the call for further delays in the implementation of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act, and to sweep away this irrelevant motion.

Question put,
That this House expresses its grave concern at the way in which the reorganisation of the National Health Service is currently taking place; regrets that the composition of the authorities is primarily appointed rather than elected; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to postpone the coming into operation of the new service pending a full-scale inquiry

The House divided: Ayes 266, Notes 285.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Moyle, Roland
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tope, Graham


Murray, Ronald King
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Gordon
Rose, Paul B.
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
Varley, Eric G.


O'Malley, Brian
Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, Bert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Wallace, George


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Padley, Walter
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Whitehead, Phillip


Pardoe, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Steel, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Woof, Robert


Probert, Arthur
Stott, Roger



Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. J. D. Dormand.


Rhodes, Geoffrey






NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooper, A. E.
Grieve, Percy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Awdry, Daniel
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dixon, Piers
Haselhurst, Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hastings, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Drayson, Burnaby
Havers, Sir Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hay, John


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Holt, Miss Mary


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Hornby, Richard


Brewis, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Foster, Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jopling, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
Kimball, Marcus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)




Kinsey, J. R.







Kitson, Timothy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, lain


Knox, David
Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Lamont, Norman
Nott, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lane, David
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stokes, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sutcliffe, John


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'field)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Loveridge, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Luce, R. N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McLaren, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McMaster, Stanley
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, Sir John


McNair-Wilson Michael
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trew, Peter


Madel, David
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maginnis, John E.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Marten, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maudling, Rt. Kn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mitchell, Lt.- Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Money, Ernle
Scott-Hopkins, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Hn. George


Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)



Mudd, David
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Spence, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Question accordingly negatived.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY (HUNTERSTON ORE TERMINAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean).

7.10 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I begin by giving my reasons for objecting to the Bill. I realise that

I am not likely to defeat a measure which seems to enjoy the enthusiastic support of both Front Benches. I wish to secure a debate and so make certain that the views of my constituents are at least heard. It is what I might call the juggernaut aspect of this bit of business which I find unattractive and disturbing.
There is a lot of talk nowadays about community politics—and a very good thing too. I understand that community politics have done the Liberal Party a lot of good. The fact is that when the views of one community, however well founded and however strongly held, happen not to coincide with the views of either of the two big parties, the chances of their ever being heeded are not good. Had I not taken the action which I have taken the Bill would have slipped through unnoticed without criticism, discussion or objection, in spite of the fact that many thousands of my constituents who live


near the proposed development are passionately opposed to what is happening.
We should not forget that it is theoretically a feature of democracy that the people on the spot should have some say in matters which concern them directly and drastically. They should not just be sacrificed willy-nilly to what they are assured by the powers that be is the good of the State. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, who I understand will intervene later, says that there has already been a long and expensive inquiry into the whole matter, I would ask him in return just how much attention he and his right hon. Friend have paid to the conclusions of the public inquiry or the further inquiry which followed.
If the Bill becomes law, the resulting iron ore terminal, together with a complex of other industrial projects which, according to the Secretary of State, will follow it, will completely change the character of the Middle Clyde. The project will blight and pollute one of Scotland's greatest beauty spots. Industrial Scotland will be deprived of one of its principal playgrounds. It will strike a severe blow at our vitally important tourist industry. It will eat up some of the best agricultural land in the country and utterly destroy the amenities of a considerable residential area.
I know that it will be represented by both Front Benches and by a number of their more assiduous supporters—I am sure that I may include my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Lambie)—that Hunterston holds the key to our national prosperity. I do not accept that view for a moment. I do not accept that it will make much difference to the employment situation. It will certainly not do so locally, and that is what I am concerned about. During the last six or seven years the word "Hunterston" has become, quite irrationally, a kind of magic slogan. Properties have come to be attributed to it which in no way correspond to reality.
I am prepared to believe that the Scottish steel industry may need a new terminal, but nothing which has been said so far—and I have followed the discussion closely for six or seven years—has convinced me that Hunterston is the right

place for it, less still for the oil refineries and the mini-mills which seem likely to follow it at enormous expense to the taxpayer. I understand that the cost will be approximately £120,000 a job. I understand that there will be relatively little advantage to the economy and the provision of relatively few new jobs locally.
During the past six or seven years we have debated the matter on a number of occasions. I do not propose to repeat arguments which I have already rehearsed several times and at considerable length. Of course we want development, but we want the right development in the right place. I do not believe, when all the relevant factors are taken into account, that the Hunterston peninsula is the right place for such development.
Apart from the question of amenity, I shall take just one of several points which I have raised constantly and on which I have never been able to get an answer. What about nuclear security? That is a question which concerns the safety of thousands of my constituents but which has been studiously dodged by successive Scottish Office Ministers, including the hon. Members for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), on the advice of civil servants who, I happen to know—having read the minutes by a fortunate mistake—urged them not to be too specific on this issue.
Today I would only say that if these projects come they will do irreparable harm to one of Scotland's greatest national assets. Matters are made worse because the chances are that the usefulness of the projects will of short duration. In 10 or 20 years from now there will no longer be any need for them. They will then become white—or perhaps I should say black—elephants and the working population which they will bring into the area will find itself without jobs.
Government Departments, and the Scottish Office in particular, should give a little more thought to the mutability of human affairs. Has it not occurred to them that at some time in the future—let us say 10 years from now—there might be a real fuel crisis? For example, there might be no more oil to bring from the Middle East. The need for giant tankers—half-a-million tonners—and shore-based refineries might disappear. The


British Steel Corporation might, for one reason or another, be driven to cut production even more drastically than today and the need for mini steel mills and new iron ore terminals might also disappear.
Generals are always accused of planning for the last war or the last war but one. I have a feeling that that is just what the Government, egged on by the Opposition, are doing at this moment. They are planning a second Industrial Revolution on strictly nineteenth century lines before Scotland has fully recovered from the after-effects of the last one. The London edition of The Times has a leading article today entitled:
Every plan must be remade now".
It has taken successive Governments, between them, six years to make up their minds about Hunterston. Might it not be a good idea if they remade their present plan before it has even had time to take shape?
In 10 years' time it will be too late. The harm will have been done. We shall have made the mistake that our forefathers made so often in the last century. We shall have destroyed an irreplaceable part of our national heritage by allowing developments which will almost certainly, in the long run, turn out not to be assets at all but will simply contribute to Scotland's existing economic and social imbalance.
Today this kind of thing seems to be happening all over Scotland. There seems to be little overall planning and very little regard for the damage that our national heritage is suffering at the hands of a lot of faceless officials. I do not want to be offensive, but I have never believed in the infallibility of the Scottish Office. I believe that my right hon. Friend's Department and my hon. Friend's sub-Department are quite capable of making all kinds of mistakes and then doing their best to slur them over, cover them up or pretend that they have never happened. We have had plenty of instances of that.
If I were seeking a justification for forcing this debate, I would find one ready made in the words of Sir Winston Churchill, who said:
It is an essential principle of the Conservative Party to defend the general public against abuses, whether of private corporations or the

incompetence and arbitrariness of Departments of State.
That is precisely what I am trying to do today, and I hope that at least some hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those who believe in community politics and may have similar problems in their own constituencies, will join me in voting against the Bill.

7.23 p.m.

Mrs. Margo MacDonald: I was advised on the composition of my maiden speech by several of my hon. Friends, all of whom told me that I should remind the House of my predecessor. I do not find this to be an even slightly onerous task. John Rankin was a very honourable man who had already given great service to the people of Glasgow in the then Tradeston constituency before he entered the House in 1945. I knew John Rankin before I came here, and I share many of his political beliefs, not least his belief in a Scottish Parliament.
As my predecessor was very much a part of Govan, I naturally referred to his maiden speech when I prepared mine. It is a sad irony and a condemnation of Governments past and present that I can find no better description of my constituency than that given by John Rankin. When he spoke of Govan in 1945 he referred to housing problems, slums and unemployment. Almost 30 years later the same shameful facts are still all too self-evident in Govan.
I represent a constituency—not just a constituency but a community—within the city of Glasgow which has almost had its heart torn out. I say "almost" because, although Govan is the most desolate Dart of Glasgow, the people have still not given up. For years they have watched their community being physically demolished, but the community spirit that is referred to so often nowadays has been present in Govan for hundreds of years and still remains.
The people there have seen fewer and fewer ships coming up the River Clyde and have watched shipyard after shipyard close until only two yards are left in my constituency. These yards are part of the life blood of Govan and Clyde-side. Nowadays the yards have fairly healthy order books, but if that situation is to continue they must be supplied with


competitively priced steel. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who said that he did not believe that the future of the steel industry in Scotland was dependent on an iron-ore terminal at Hunterston. If we are to have a future for the Scottish steel industry and security for the people who are employed in that industry and related industries an iron-ore terminal is a necessity. The effect of the terminal on industry in my constituency is only one example of how vital it is for the future security of the steel industry in Scotland and the industrial regeneration of West Central Scotland.
I fully sympathise with the people of Ayrshire who fear that industrial development at Hunterston will irreversibly damage their environment. Indeed, they are to be complimented on the way in which they have highlighted the dangers of unsuitable development. But the social and physical environment of all the communities in West Central Scotland will be better served by industrial regeneration than by industrial decay. In any case, we now know much more about the reclamation of industrial sites than we did when this protracted argument about Hunterston started.
The whole project has been thoroughly discussed and researched. My only major reservation concerns the Orsi Company plan for a refinery to refine oil from Africa and the Middle East. If all the current plans for oil refineries in Scotland are carried out, we may not need that proposed refinery.
However, the whole Hunterston project does not hinge on that one refinery. It hinges on the ore terminal, and my hon. Friends who represent Scottish industrial constituencies know what a psychological boost the approval of the project will give to the West of Scotland. We have talked enough; can we not now just get on with it?

7.27 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on a well prepared and attractively delivered speech. If all that I heard did not please my ears, everything that my eye saw was a delight.
The purpose of the Bill, which I oppose, is to build a jetty. On the face

of it, that seems to be a minor matter about which to get agitated, but I dare say that we shall get agitated before the end of the debate. As we all know, what is at stake is not just a jetty. That is merely a modest first step in a development that is designed to lead to major industrialisation of the whole Hunterston peninsula. The question whether that should take place is what we are debating. If the jetty is built on the site proposed the rest will follow as sure as night follows day.
I do not want the House to think that because I am opposed to the jetty I am opposed to all development everywhere. There must be development if we are to live. Development is almost synonymous with life. Whether it be the development of ploughing which raises crops from the ground, of mining which raises coal from below the ground, or of drilling which raises oil from beneath the sea, we cannot have life without development. Life depends on development.
Life, however, does not depend only on development and the riches that flow from it. Life—the good life, the balanced life—depends on many intangible qualities quite as much as on material affluence. The good life depends on fresh air for health, and peace, space, quiet and beauty for relaxation. The good life depends as much on being able to get away from the stench of the factory and the noise of the anvil as it depends on the product of their industry. This is surely common ground between us. All these intangibles which go to enrich the quality of life exist to a marked degree on the Hunterston peninsula and the coast lying between the headland and the village of Fairlie.
My purpose in intervening in the debate is to plead with the Government to retain this uniquely beautiful part of Scotland so that it may continue to fulfil the important national purpose of providing workers in industry—workers who come from the hon. Lady's constituency just as much as from mine—with a pleasant place which is easily accessible to them—a place where they may refresh their minds and bodies in beautiful surroundings so different from the squalor of the areas where they work.

Mr. Edward Taylor: How many workers from Govan


or Hillhead have been able to obtain access to the Hunterston peninsula during the last 100 years?

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) is not his usual perspicacious self. He well knows the damage that this development will do to the foreshore and to the view from Largs, and the smell, and all the rest of it, which the development will bring. He must not be disingenuous, because it spoils his case.
It is the development on this precise spot which I wish to prevent. I believe that to develop in this area would be a piece of wanton and irresponsible vandalism. But because I am opposed to development on the proposed site it does not mean that I am opposed to development elsewhere. I very much hope the House will appreciate this. Therefore, I hope that there will be none of the ridiculous misrepresentation which has often occurred in the past, to the effect that people cannot live on beauty alone. Of course, one cannot live on beauty alone, but neither can one live the good life without beauty. It is not a question of beauty or the beast. We need beauty and the beast. Let us keep the beast in chains and not allow it to wander at will and despoil each earthly paradise as it chooses.
We seem to have been considering the future of Hunterston for a good many years, and a great deal has happened in that time to change the picture from what was originally conceived—and there have been changes recently. What is interesting, however, is that these changes do not seem to have been recognised, at least in the statement that the promoters were kind enough to send me this morning. They refer to the increase in the number of oil tankers, but that conception is surely as dead as the dodo. Who thinks that there is any chance of an increase in the number of oil tankers now and into the far distant future? If there is to be oil it will come ashore by pipe from the Continental Shelf surrounding Scotland, and if by some happy chance, as a result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's negotiations oil occasionally arrives in this country by sea in bulk, then surely Finart, with its pipe to Grangemouth, is

capable of dealing with it. It is unnecessary to duplicate facilities for oil in the way originally envisaged, particularly when the flow of oil is likely to be less rather than more. Therefore, I think we can wash out oil from our calculations.
If there is to be no oil there will be no petrochemical industry, either. All that will be left is the iron ore terminal—and it is for that alone that this area is to be despoiled.
The promoters' statement goes on to say that the Hunterston peninsula provides the only "satisfactory" location. It does not say the only technically possible location, but the only "satisfactory" one. It is extraordinarily self-centred of the developers to think only about their own satisfaction—their convenience as port operators or as steel manufacturers—and entirely to ignore the views of the local inhabitants, whose whole way of life will be most grievously affected if the development takes place, to say nothing of holidaymakers from the rest of Scotland and, indeed, from elsewhere.
The scheme is named after Hunterston, but Fairlie would be a much more accurate description. The centre of gravity has been moved increasingly northwards and the ore terminal is only a few hundred yards away from the houses of Fairlie. The fact that the quality of the local people's lives is being ignored is not, I am sorry to say, an isolated phenomenon. It is happening the whole time. The Government should pay a little more attention to the views of local inhabitants instead of careering on regardless, like a huge juggernaut. It is this unnecessary—and I stress the word "unnecessary" disregard for the wishes of people as individuals which has caused the growth of what is called community politics.
A distressing feature, which Ministers should certainly be considering, is how often the planning machine seems to come down on the side of mammon and the big battalions, and how rarely it espouses the less powerful cause of people, as individuals. Why is this regarded as the only satisfactory location? It is "satisfactory" simply because it costs less money. It is certainly not the only location, nor is it the only place where there is deep water. Just a few miles to the south there is equally deep water, off


Ardrossan. Admittedly the jetty would be a little longer there, but what would the marginally extra cost matter compared to the avoidable devastation which will be caused by going ahead at Hunterston?
Usually, when pure commercial judgment points in one way and social needs in another, a cost benefit study is commissioned. There would have been no Victoria Line and no Maplin development on pure commercial grounds, but they were found to be justified after cost-benefit studies had taken place. Can the Minister say why no cost-benefit study has been carried out in this respect? Why is the harshness of commercial decision applied to Scotland while the much more generous assessment of a cost-benefit study is applied to England? The proposed jetty it itself a little old-fashioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to fighting last year's battles. In future, so I am informed, it will be possible to pump iron ore in slurry into a buoy in mid-stream. There will be no need for a jetty at all. Were any calculations and assessments of this method of transporting ore carried out by an independent firm? We do not want only the views of the Clyde Port Authority, which is an interested party, or the British Steel Corporation.
Surely if we have learned one thing in recent times it is that the days of prodigality are over. We cannot afford to squander our raw materials or our high-class agricultural land at Hunterston for industrial purposes. We need that land to produce food. Industry does not require high quality agricultural land; nor does it require a site of high scenic value. Yet these two things—high scenic value and high quality agricultural land—are precisely what the Bill is unnecessarily providing for industry.
To my mind it is quite monstrous. It is the utter negation of good planning, which should ensure that development takes place without damaging beauty. The whole purpose of having a planning law is to get the two—not one at the expense of the other.
There is nothing technically against moving to Ardrossan. What is against it is that the Clyde Port Authority, the British Steel Corporation and, I am sorry to say, the Government—represented by

my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, for whom, despite the harsh remarks I am making tonight, I have the highest private regard—are behaving with the same ruthless irresponsibility for the long-term welfare of Scotland as the most grasping of nineteenth century private industrialists. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches should recognise this fact. All that has happened is that the profiteering of individuals has been replaced by the ruthlessness of bureaucrats who think of what is administratively easy for themselves, not what is good for the community as a whole.
I suppose that one cannot unduly blame the Clyde Port Authority or the British Steel Corporation. Their responsibility is primarily of a commercial kind. I do not want to be unfair to them. I merely point out that their hands are no cleaner than those of their private enterprise predecessors. But I most definitely blame the Government for what I regard as their appalling short-sightedness and failure to steer the development—perhaps at some cost in cash, but at great saving in social terms—to a less vulnerable area.
I should not feel nearly so strongly on this matter, or feel that the Government were at fault, if the choice were between steel or beauty. But that is not the choice, and it makes me very angry when people try to suggest that that is the choice. The choice is between an iron ore jetty that is cheap, at the expense of the abolition of beauty, or an iron ore jetty marginally more expensive a few miles down the coast, and the preservation of that beauty.
We can, in fact, have our cake and eat it. For goodness sake—I appeal to the House before it is too late—let us stop this needless desecration of our precious heritage. Let us take the development to the right place and keep the beauty where God put it.

7.43 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) in his congratulatory remarks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on her maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary in almost all circumstances to have beauty and the beast. Certainly she is the beauty.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was extremely well argued and towards the end it demolished to a considerable extent some of the points illustrated by his hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). For example, the hon. Gentleman does not contest, as the hon. Baronet does, that it is essential to have a new iron ore terminal on the Clyde.

Sir F. Maclean: I expressly said that I was prepared to believe that the British Steel Corporation might need a new iron ore terminal. What I contest is that it is necessary to have it at Hunterston when there are several other places where it could equally well go.

Dr. Mabon: I was careful to note what the hon. Gentleman said, namely, that he did not think it would make much difference to our economy and certainly no difference in terms of local employment. However, if he now admits or emphasises what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, that Scotland now needs an iron ore terminal of a substantial character, able to take in the large ships carrying ore from Australia and elsewhere at substantially reduced transport costs, sufficient to sustain our great Scottish steel industry—and that is no longer in doubt—I shall accept it.
I shall not argue—it is for the Minister to give us information, and doubtless he will intervene—whether there is any substance in the proposal about Ardrossan. I recall from my time in the Scottish Office the arguments about the various choices not just for ore terminals but for any of the developments that were to take place on the Clyde. One of the best things I had the honour of doing in this House was introducing the Clyde Port Authority Order Bill, which amalgamated all the harbours of the Clyde Estuary and stopped the silly nonsense of rivalries between Ardrossan, Greenock, Glasgow, and so on. The river is now run properly as a river and estuary, able to deal with all the problems and strategy in these important matters.
I recall being told about the navigation problems of Ardrossan. Those who have lived in that area and know it well realise that there is a great difference between anchorage at Ardrossan and at Hunterston or Fairlie.
I concede to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and in particular to the Reverend Dr. Gordon Weir, who has been writing us very sensible, polite and well-argued letters on behalf of his parishioners and others, that it is not fair to pretend that nothing will happen to this area when the ore terminal is built. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), whose intervention in debating terms was very good, that very few people have ever been allowed in that peninsula over many years. Nevertheless, from Greenock, Largs and many places round about, the ore terminal when it is built—I am sure that it will be built—will affect the amenity and scenery of the area. No one can gainsay that.
I spent a good deal of my life in a house in the West Bay, Millport. From there, one can see where the ore terminal will be. We cannot pretend that there will be no change. The question is: will the interests of this small community and of all who take holidays in those parts and love them very much outweigh the general interest of the Scottish economy?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point, but has he put the two things in the right juxtaposition? He is assuming that the terminal cannot go anywhere else. If he is right, and technically it cannot go anywhere else, I agree that the terminal and the development is probably more important than the beauty and, indeed, the holiday aspect. However, he should address his mind to the question whether that is the only place. What would it cost to put it somewhere else? That is the point that is always fudged and not dealt with properly.

Mr. Mabon: That was fair. If we were starting off now it would be a fair point. The juggernaut aspects of this affair, which the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire mentioned and the remark about the Bill slipping through unnoticed, is a joke. It must be. This Bill is born of the longest planning inquiry in Scottish history. Even before the inquiry began the debate on Hunterston had raged for many years. Indeed, the present Secretary of State, when in Opposition, swore that his political success would be marked by developments at Hunterston, so convinced were the Conservative Opposition


of the case for industrialisation at that time. I am not decrying the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire in that regard. However, as I say, we have known of the Hunterston development for many years and all the legal processes have ben gone through very carefully indeed.
This Bill is to implement an order which has been heard by Parliamentary Commissioners and I hope that my hon. Friend for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who have been associated with the hearings, will say a word about it. The hearings resulted directly in the shaping of Clause 10 of the Instrument and gave concessions on noise and dust. In the original planning permission the Secretary of State's letter dealt with amenity matters as far as reasonably possible. I cannot accept criticisms abusing the Scottish Office. I agree that the Scottish Office is not faultless, but when I was there it was more infallible than the War Office when the hon. Gentleman was there. Seriously, I do not think that it is fair to attack the civil servants in the Scottish Office. It has carried out the processes required of it by this and the last Parliament.
Neither is it fair to attack the Clyde Port Authority, which has had to devise an alternative scheme to replace General Terminus Quay. If there are arguments against Hunterston, in favour of Ardrossan, it should be said that no one has suggested anything else beyond these two areas.

Sir F. Maclean: I did not want to bore the House when I suggested Ardrossan and mentioned Ardmore again and again, and forwarded to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State an adequate plan drawn up by Mr. Morton, outlining all the possibilities of Ardrossan, which is crying out for development.

Dr. Mabon: All these matters were processed at the inquiry and processed again when the objectors appeared before the Parliamentary Commissioners. They have been rebutted. If the Minister has more information to show that this conclusion is right perhaps he will tell us tonight. If he has information which shows that the Parliamentary Com-

missioners were misled, the Minister will not bless the Bill. But for the technical assessment it is the Government who are in the position of having new information, and if they do not it would be foolish of the House to deny the Bill its place on the statute book.
I turn to the question of nuclear security. This is relevant to the refineries that may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State. We are not discussing refineries tonight, although I have my reservations about the slowness of the Secretary of State in dealing with the two applications about which he should have done something a long time before this. I agree that the nuclear inspectorate has rightly been examining the problem thoroughly. But it has to say more publicly than it has so far about the safety factors affecting that peninsula, should the refineries be built. That is not true, however, of the ore terminal or the stockyard. I am surprised at the hon. baronet raising that matter tonight.

Sir F. Maclean: Does the hon. Member not agree that it is all part of the same package? My right hon. Friend has made it clear that with the iron ore terminal will come all these other developments. In the hon. Member's time at the Scottish Office minutes were sent to me by mistake, which made it clear that what the Scottish Office was concerned about was industrial development and an increase of population within the small area around Hunterston. It is not Hunterston B that we are talking about; it is Hunterston A—the old-fashioned, much less safe nuclear power station which was put there for the reason that it needed to be a long way away.

Dr. Mabon: When I was in the Scottish Office I wrote the letters and signed them, but did not seal the envelopes or put in the enclosurses. It was no doubt a War Office civil servant who did that, while temporarily in the Scottish Office. The revelation does not embarrass me. On the contrary, it is of public concern. That is why I deliberately raised the subject again.
We are not debating refineries. We are debating the ore terminal. The oil terminal is both sustainable and viable in itself without the refineries. My hon. Friends know my position on the need for refineries. Of course I want to see


further industrial development, but we are not debating that matter now. We are restricted to the subject of the iron ore terminal and the stockyard.
I should like the Minister to tell us more about what is happening. I hope he will also acknowledge that there is a good argument for reclaiming the Hunterston and Southannan sands. That whole peninsula is an example of reclamation. The land was not "naturally" there hundreds of years ago. It was reclaimed gradually by small farmers building out into the sea and using the shallow shelf whose edge will be the demarcation line of the proposed harbour. I understand that if that reclamation were to take place—and it is a perfectly reasonable proposal—it would provide more land and therefore save less trespassing on land further in from the peninsula That land could be reclaimed at a cost of between £15,000 and £20,000 an acre, and could be a good example of the kind of regional developments we might get from the Common Market regional development fund. We deserve some investment in Scotland from the European Community, and this would be a good example. As for being expensive, it would be no more so than other reclamation projects. It would be enormously useful to us to meet the valid criticisms made about amenity. I hope the Minister will touch on this subject, and say whether the Clyde Port Authority, which is seriously considering this reclamation project, is likely to get the British Government's sponsorship or whether the authority should approach the EEC direct.
Many of us have deep reservations about Maplin and the amount of money committed to that proposition for a South-East Coast port to be reclaimed from the sands of Foulness. Why is it that we cannot get a bit more money invested in Scotland, either from the Government or the EEC, so that we have this marvellous opportunity to create a first-class deep water port at Hunterston?

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am in the unfortunate position of finding myself more in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald), in her excellent speech, and

the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) than with some of my hon. Friends.
I was particularly interested in the hon. Member for Greenock's point about the possibility of getting cash from the Common Market Regional Development Fund. Were it not for the fact that we are contributing £90 million net this year and next to the Common Market, after all the repayments we would have had a splendid fund of £90 million in Britain which we could have used for projects like this without consulting the Common Market. It is a shame that we do not have that opportunity.
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on the splendid campaign he has conducted on behalf of his constituents. He has done it responsibly and ably and has impressed many people. It has also been a help to the Government in these difficult times because his constant opposition to the proposal has enabled the Government to announce the new project at least once a fortnight for the past year and it has meant considerable items of good news coming from time to time.
However, I am not impressed by the arguments against the Bill. No one can doubt that there is a need for the jetty. The fact is that the general terminus quay cannot cope with the likely amount and cannot take the larger vessels which can bring us economies in terms of the supply of iron ore. There is no doubt that without a new jetty we cannot take advantage of the economies stemming from the use of large vessels.
I am not impressed with the remarks of those who try to press the unique advantages of this peninsula. It has not been available to the workers of Hill-head or Cathcart in my memory. It is not as though we are proposing the destruction of a recreational area for workers. The only point appears to be the view which can be obtained from Millport and elsewhere.
Similar arguments were put to me when we were considering the establishment of the nuclear power station there. However, in my opinion Hunterston "A" has added to the beauty of the area. It is a magnificent sight and has not detracted from the scenic interest of the area.
The question which I want to put to the Minister is the very question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire asked. Is this just the beginning or is it an end in itself? There is no doubt that an iron-ore terminal on its own would make sense. It would help to provide cheaper and better supplies of iron ore, and the terminal could be justified in itself. But I hope that it is not something in itself and that it is only the beginning of a major industrial enterprise in the area.
It is crucial for Scotland if we are to prosper in the future that we make use of our unique natural assets, especially in view of the pull towards the centre of the Common Market. There is no doubt that the deep water at Hunterson is a unique asset, and it is the reason why so many foreign companies have shown a keen interest in developing there.

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend has referred to the deep water at Hunterston. However, it exists at other places besides Hunterston. I wish that hon. Members would get Hunterston out of their heads. It is the deep water which is important, and that is to be found almost anywhere in the Clyde.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is wrong. There are only about six areas in Western Europe with the facilities that we have at Hunterston.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) suggested Ardrossan. But that has been there a long time. It is an industrialised area. It was only when the agricultural land of the Hunterston peninsula was suggested for industrial development that foreign companies became interested.
We have heard a number of references to stench and smoke. It is said that workers coming from the noise and stench of anvils do not want to find the same in this area. But I cannot see the relevance of that argument. Presumably the people of Ardrossan already have their share of stench. If it is proposed to give them additional stench, it can only mean that the argument is that if they have some stench already a little more will do them no harm.
When we as a nation contemplate spending so much money on major projects like Maplin, the Channel Tunnel

and Concorde which may cost the taxpayer a fortune, it is fatal not to give every facility and encouragement to a project which will give Scotland an opportunity to produce cheap steel, which, after all, is crucial to our future.
If we were to put a steel mill somewhere else where it might not be so cheap, we should have to bear in mind the rules of the Common Market steel policy and of the ECSC. It is not possible or consistent with the rules to say that, although we do not want a cheaper project at Hunterston, we want a more expensive one elsewhere. That is neither possible nor legal under the terms of the ECSC. It is not possible to give subsidies to steel works so that they will locate themselves in places which are economically undesirable. If we do not have steel works in the cheapest possible sites, the cost of steel will be that much more. When we have a basing point system for steel pricing as we have under the Common Market rules, the price that we have to pay is the cost of production at the site plus transport costs. When we have the full effects of the basing point system, if we do not produce cheap steel we shall have to pay the market price plus transport costs. To say that we should abandon the Hunterston steel project and put it somewhere else more expensive but more socially desirable is not the real answer to our problems. It will only mean dearer steel, and we cannot subsidise steel developments under the Common Market rules.
My fear has always been that with our entry into the Common Market we should have centralisation of industry and decision making in the centre of the Market just as we have had the pull to the centre of Britain and to the south for so many years. In Scotland we could well end up with great developments in tourism, Harris tweed, Scotch whisky and agriculture but with no development of Scotland as an industrial country which can stand on its own feet, as we have to under Common Market rules. The Common Market arrangements will ensure that we can no longer keep our industries going by subsidising our old industries. We shall have to stand on our own feet without subsidies. To that extent it is crucial to develop Hunterston and to ensure that we have new industrial


development which can pay its way and hold itself up in competition with anyone.
I hope that the Government will not delay further on the Hunterston project but, instead, will make sure that in this unique site every facility is given to going ahead with the right development. I am not saying that the one proposed is the right one. However, if we delay we shall get the worst of both worlds.
The one factor holding up decisions has been the study by the nuclear inspectors. I understand that a report should be going to the Government very shortly giving their views on nuclear safety. When the Government have that guidance, I hope that within the limits of security the information will be made public so that we may know the reasons for holding up further decisions.
I hope that the House will approve the Bill. It can stand on its own. It is suitable and desirable for the steel industry to ensure that we get the larger ore carriers coming to Scotland and giving us cheaper ore. On the other hand, I hope that it is just a beginning and that there will be no unreasonable delay in going ahead with it.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I support the Bill as someone who resides in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). He said that he spoke on behalf of his constituents. However, he did not speak for me. He did not speak for any of my friends in both the Conservative and Labour Parties in the area of Bute and North Ayrshire. He spoke for a small minority of people who are directly concerned with the siting of this project.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I do not kid myself that an iron-ore terminal and a stockyard are not just that. A steel mill is a steel mill. An oil refinery is an oil refinery. No matter how much they are camouflaged they are still industrial projects. However, I object to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) arguing that there is already an iron-ore terminal in Ardrossan but that there is not one in Fairlie. If the argument is against pollution, surely we should be against the whole project.

Mr. Galbraith: The point is that the Ardrossan area is not a particularly attractive area.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Oh !

Mr. Galbraith: Are hon. Gentlemen seriously suggesting that it has the same scenic beauty as the Hunterston Peninsula? Let us be honest. It does not. All I am trying to say is that when there is a little bit of industrialisation it is good policy to increase that industrialisation. It is like litter. Lots of bits of paper lying around the place look bloody awful. Put them in a wastepaper basket and they are all right.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman has been spending so long in the South-East that he has no knowledge of the West of Scotland. In the area between Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston we get more visitors from Glasgow and the West of Scotland industrial area than any other area of Clydeside. On a good day we get about 60,000 people on the grass and sands in that area.
I remind the hon. Member that the last time I was down at Portencross in the Hunterston Peninsula was when I was a boy. I have never been back since because I was told then "You have no right to be here. This is private property." Now they want 100,000 Glasgow people down in the Hunterston area to enjoy the scenic beauty. We are considering an industrial project over a coastline of about four-and-a-half miles. In the stretch between Ardrossan and Irvine we have one of the main industrial areas, particularly for the chemical industry. It is still an attractive area. People still go there in hundreds of thousands every year to enjoy the sands and the other tourist facilities like golfing.
No one in the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston area regrets that 100 years ago this year Alfred Nobel, in search of an ideal site for a munitions factory, decided on the area between Stevenston and Irvine. He placed his munitions factory—or his "dynamite" as we call it locally—in this area and there grew up one of the greatest companies in the world, ICI. We are talking about a small area of land. It will not interfere with Millport, Rothesay, Dunoon, Ballantrae, Girvan or Campbeltown.
It has been asked: why go to Hunters-ton? Some people have said that the reason for industrialising Hunterston is to bring in Labour voters to North Ayrshire. When I was prospective Labour candidate for Bute and North Ayrshire it was said that the only way I could defeat the hon. Member for that constituency was by getting more industrial workers to the area. That is not the reason for putting forward this project.
The reason is the same as that which Alfred Nobel had when he placed his munitions factory in the area. It is the only deep-water site with adequate flat land behind it available for development in the Garnock Valley and the Irvine Valley, in the whole western area of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has said it is one of only six such areas on the coastline of Western Europe. We have not picked Hunterston without a good reason. We think we have to go there to utilise this unique asset. We were told that we were on the periphery of the United Kingdom. Now we are on the periphery of Europe. For the first time we have a natural asset possessed by very few other areas in the United Kingdom or Europe.
I am surprised that we should even be debating this tonight. We should be congratulating the Clyde Port Authority on coming forward with the scheme. We should be congratulating the Government on supporting it. Together with another unique asset on the other side of our coastline, North Sea oil, Scotland could become, either as part of the United Kingdom or as a sovereign State, one of the richest and most powerful industrial areas in Western Europe.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on her speech. I hope that she will send a copy of it to some of her Scottish Nationalist Party friends in Bute and North Ayrshire and to her party's candidate for that seat. It is time that he started supporting the policies that she has put forward on behalf of her party. I received very little support, as the Labour candidate in that area, from members of the SNP. At the last election the party campaigned against the industrialisation of Hunterston. I hope that we have now got a conversion among the Scottish Nationalists and that

they are in favour of utilising this great natural and unique asset.
My only criticism is that we are dealing with an iron-ore terminal and associated stockyards. I had hoped that we would be dealing with the whole gamut of the industrialisation of the Hunterston area on the lines proposed at the public inquiry by Ayr County Council. It put forward plans for an iron-ore terminal with an associated integrated steel mill of annual capacity of 12,000 tons, an oil terminal with associated refineries and a petrochemical works. Unfortunately, we are not discussing this tonight. I hope that by making this start with the iron-ore terminal we will provoke a reaction and will get all of the things which Ayr County Council wanted.
This terminal was approved by the Secretary of State in December 1970 after one of the longest public inquiries in Scotland's history. But that was not the start. The concept of Hunterston arose in 1968 when Colville's came forward with the scheme to revitalise the Scottish steel industry and develop a new, integrated plant at Hunterston. Often I feel despondent when people ask me when we are to get such a development. We have been on this since 1968, and sometimes I think it will be delayed until we get a Labour Government. Now, following the longest public inquiry in the history of Scotland, we are seeing tonight the start of this industrialisation.
Some Conservative Members have said that only a certain group of people are in favour of this project, but that is not true. The whole of Scotland is in favour. Scottish public opinion is in favour of developing Hunterston. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry favoured it in its two "Oceanspan" reports, and the latest report by Professor Nicholl, of Strathclyde University, "A Future for Scotland", emphasises the need for development at Hunterston. The whole concept of "Oceanspan" was that of using the Clyde as the entrance and the exit of Europe.
The Scottish TUC and its spokesman on steel, Arthur Bell, the Scottish Officer of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, have also supported the industrialisation of the Hunterston area. Speaking on behalf of the industrial workers, James Jack, the General Secretary of the STUC, gave evidence in the County Buildings in Ayr on behalf of the project.
Therefore, the whole broad consensus of industry, the Confederation of British Industry and even the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland are in favour of the project. In fact, everyone is in favour of it, with the exception of a small group of people in the West Kilbride area.
I have no objection to people complaining that their lives will be affected by industrialisation. In much the same way, I am concerned with the development of the new town of Irvine, where we are trying to superimpose a new town on existing communities; this creates great problems. When I used to go through Glasgow as a Glasgow teacher travelling around Charing Cross every morning and evening, I saw a different sight from the concrete jungle which now gives quick access from the south to the north of Glasgow. The building of this jungle meant the displacement of thousands of Glasgow people and businesses, but we did not hear a complaint then from people in the West Kilbride-Fairlie area that it was against the general interests of the people of Scotland. I do not mind people fighting on their own individual grounds but they should not confuse their feelings with the general feelings of the people of Scotland.
The first group against these industrial developments was the North Ayrshire coastal development committee, based mainly on West Kilbride. At that time, we were dealing solely with the immediate danger of the application by the Chevron Oil Company to build a terminal and refinery opposite West Kilbride. There was a consequent upsurge from the middle class in West Kilbride, but now they have dropped out of the fight. That committee has been suspended, and we are now getting information from the Fairlie Action Committee. Now the immediate danger in respect of development is an iron-ore terminal not in the West Kilbride area but in the Fairlie area. So we are dealing with objections from very few people, and that is why I hope that the Government will push through with this proposal as a start.
Going up the Clyde on Monday I saw how this area will develop. On the Clyde now, between The Cumbraes and

Largs, some of the largest tankers in the world are being unloaded. They should have been going into the great port of Rotterdam. Unfortunately, because of the Arab embargo, they cannot, so they are lying in the deep sheltered waters between The Cumbraes and the coast and the oil is being trans-shipped to smaller vessels to go to the ports and refineries along the English coast, which cannot accommodate the larger ships.
The only thing that I am afraid of is how Scotland's assets will be treated. The late George Middleton, former General Secretary of the STUC, used to tell me, "It was a strange thing that, during the war, the Tail of the Bank was the main port of the United Kingdom, but after the war it was on the periphery, away from the main centres." I hope that these ships are the forerunners of other ships carrying oil and iron ore, phosphates and the other bulk cargoes which must come if the general purposes port is developed. That is why I am glad to see, for the first time since I entered Parliament in June 1970, some developments along the road towards the full industrialisation of the Hunterston peninsula.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on putting up, consistently and well, the fight on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) implied that this was wrong because only a small minority was involved. This is a problem which we have to face in this House, and which we shall increasingly face over the next few years.
If we are to get the full benefits of oil in Scotland that we all want, there will be any number of people who will say that a development is absolutely superb, exactly what Scotland needs, until it lands on their doorstep. As soon as it does, they will appeal to whichever Member of Parliament happens to represent that bit of ground to fight tooth and nail to preserve them from something which may be entirely necessary for Soot-land's development. He will have to do his best to represent that cause, because there are other hon. Members who, clearly, have contrary views. It is right


that we should have a substantial debate on this matter, so that they feel that their viewpoint has been properly expressed.
My hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy, said that he would not reiterate all the arguments that he had used over a number of years, many of which we remember. I had the task of sitting as a Parliamentary Commissioner when this particular problem—I confine myself to the ore terminal—was discussed in Glasgow a few months ago. Both sides brought the best experts they could find to argue the various points which they thought were important, such as whether Ardrossan was a safe place to anchor 100,000-ton tankers; whether we should move from pipelines of iron ore to slurry; or whether it was not a satisfactory method of handling. It was our task to listen to the arguments as they were presented, to ask what questions we cared to ask, and to make up our minds. It is a matter of historical fact that the four commissioners appointed to the task came unanimously to the conclusion that this was the right solution. There was also a unanimous decision that the most that could possibly be done to protect the amenity of the area should be laid on the Clyde Port Authority.
There is no doubt that it is the people of Fairlie who will really suffer. I do not entirely share the view that the iron-ore terminal will ruin the amenity of the whole area. There is an enormous amount of beautiful country in my constituency, where I am sure these problems will arise in years ahead. We have more coastline than the whole of France, yet every single development of every tiny piece of coast is bitterly fought by people in the area because it is claimed that we are ruining the coastline of Scotland.
I appreciate their point of view. One has to decide what is the right solution. I have no greater certainty than anyone else in the House about the infallibility of the Scottish Office. It is wrong from time to time, but it is human to err, and in many cases it is exceedingly difficult to foresee what will happen in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. But the one deadly sin which occasionally besets the Scottish Office—and some other Ministries—is the inability to make up its mind. If it is

going to take six years, not wasted years, to come to a conclusion on a problem of this sort, what chance have we of getting the necessary development to get North Sea oil ashore in Scotland in time to be of any use?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I join the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) in complimenting the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I agree that while a relatively small number of persons may be affected, this does not lessen in any way the validity of the argument. It would be a bad day if we thought that a Member of Parliament need not bother just because only a relatively small number of people were involved. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his long and continued concern over the matter. It is right that he should do his best to ensure that the case of a section of his constituents is adequately presented.
I have doubts about what we might do to our coastline. I have raised the question and have urged upon the Secretary of State the need to ensure that we do not spoil the coastline unnecessarily. I recognise that there must be development, but possibly development is carried out in parts where it need not be carried out. Perhaps development should be gathered together in one place, in much the same way as litter is put into a wastepaper basket rather than being allowed to remain all over the place.
I was a member of the Nature Conservancy for a considerable time. I have been concerned about what might happen at Migg Bay. I do not live in the area, and perhaps I am seldom there, but there are parts of our country about which, extensive though the coastline may be, we must remain very concerned. I hope that it will not be thrown on me because I have a vested interest on this occasion, in respect of this part of the coastline. The case has been so powerfully made out that even the hon. Gentleman must bow to it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) may recall that in the middle of 1967 he and I took a trip down the Clyde. He may also recall the discussion we had with the representatives of the Clyde Port Authority. We asked what particular advantages the


Clyde had that might result in its survival in terms of industrial importance. The Clyde was in a difficult way at the time. The answer came immediately—it was "deep water." It was added that it was not only deep water but deep sheltered water. That was the second point made. I cannot recall the third asset which was advanced at that time, but it was to do with flat land.
As I understand it, the peculiar suitability of the site chosen here is that not only has it very deep water; it has also sheltered water. We were told that it will take any size of ship that is ever likely to be built—and our informants were talking of ships ranging from 350,000 tons to 500,000 tons. Ships will be able to go straight in and out. They will not have to manœuvre into any kind of artificial lake or harbour. I understand that one of the outstanding difficulties of Ardrossan is that it does not have sheltered water, but is open to the Atlantic. Not only does the Hunterston area have sheltered water; it also has flat land around it, which is ideal.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire spoke of Ardmore as a possibility. I remember that in 1968—as early as that—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and I talked to representatives of Colville's. We got wind of the firm's interest and discussed the matter with Mr. John Craig, who has since retired. We got a description of both the Ardmore and the Hunterston sites. It had not been settled at the time which of these two sites was the more suitable. Ardmore had much to be said for it, but it had certain disadvantages. The approaches were not as suitable, because of the type of ship concerned in this operation. Also, it was pointed out that there was no proper hinterland with a population readily accessible—an important feature in this matter.

Sir F. Maclean: Is it not a fact that at that time it was proposed to reclaim 9,000 acres on either side of the Clyde near Ardmore? Also, would not Ardmore be nearer people and the centre of things?

Mr. Lawson: These arguments were advanced at the time, but in the end the argument came down decidedly in favour

of Hunterston. We were discussing the steel industry and not the oil industry at that time. Hunterston, it was pointed out, had behind it Ayrshire, with its industrial population spreading into North Lanarkshire as well. Thus, there were advantages in terms of both the approaches and the hinterland. All these factors were carefully weighed. It seems to me that if this is not a wholly unique site it is about as unique as we are likely to have.
In my understanding, the development here proposed is essential for the steel industry as it now exists and as it is planned to grow. The existing means by which ore comes in—if coal were being brought in, the same would apply—is through the terminus quay at Govan, far up the Clyde. But I understand that the ships for that area will range from 15,000 to 20,000 tons, with, perhaps, on very odd occasions, ships of 28,000 tons. But these are tiny ships compared with the ships now sailing the seas and the ships which will be necessary if our steel-making industry is to continue in Scotland.
The information coming to me and, I am sure, to many other Members, is that by 1977–78—not very far away in time—the General Terminus Quay will not be able to meet the needs of the existing steel industry in Scotland. I am not talking about a steel industry on the Clyde, or at Hunterston. It may come. I do not know. However, in the steel industry where it is sited now—and an important part of it is sited in my constituency, at Ravenscraig—the build up, particularly at Ravenscraig, is dependent upon this ore terminal. Without this ore terminal that build up at Ravenscraig will not take place. The two things go together. We have important bits and pieces of the steel industry in Scotland now, but I think that all hon. Members will agree that if we do not have the build up at Ravenscraig the prospects of Scotland's having a sizeable steel industry will be bleak indeed. I put it to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, while respecting all his arguments, that that is essential for the steel industry as it is now and as its growth is planned.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not certain. I am not yet convinced that it has to be on this site in particular. I will go along with the hon. Member that there has


to be a terminal. I feel that it could to be at Ardrossan. That is not open to the Atlantic. I know the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is saying that I know nothing about it and that I spend all my time in London, but I know that Ardrossan is not open to the Atlantic; there is a bit of Kintyre between it and the Atlantic. All I was suggesting was that the extra cost of building that terminal should be regarded as a social cost. On that I agree with the hon. Member. If it cannot be built there, if the cost should be too much, then the steel industry depends upon a new terminal somewhere in that locality.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member will know that I cannot answer that. None of us here is in a position precisely to examine all these matters. My understanding is that over a long period of time all this has been looked at and that Ardrossan has a rock bottom, so that it would be expensive to make a deep water channel. That has to be set against the argument for the site with which we are now concerned. There, as I understand it, is a reclaimable shelf, and deep water without the expense of excavation, which would have been a feature of the work at Ardrossan. Moreover, as I understand it, Ardrossan is much more exposed to the big seas out of the Atlantic and is without the shelter which is considered so important.
Without wishing to take up much more time I want for a moment to turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), if I could have his attention for a moment. His views and mine are very often close together; we are often close together in our arguments, although sometimes they are a wee bit at variance. When I heard him talking, I wondered whether he would appear next in his kilt. I have not seen him in a kilt, so perhaps I should not say "in his kilt". Before he interrupts me perhaps he will listen to what I have to say. There is nothing wrong with the kilt. I have worn the kilt myself on occasions.
I accept the importance, for Scotland, of this site. I accept the importance of the east coast. I would, however, tell my hon. Friend that an enormous part of the advantages which would accrue to Scotland because of these possibilities of

very substantial development in Scotland is derived from the fact that we belong to a much larger unit. The development of a steel industry in that area, or in those areas, and to the size we have been speaking of, would have been nonsense if we had been operating simply on a Scottish basis. It was a Great Britain steel industry with which we were concerned. When we were arguing earlier for the steel complex in that area—we are not arguing for that at present—and thinking in terms of possibly 10 million tons, we were thinking in terms of a United Kingdom industry and not a Scottish industry.
May I whisper in the ear of the two hon. Members who represent the Scottish Nationalist Party in this area? Had it been left entirely to Scotland—had we had a Scottish Government when the decisions were taken about the strip steel mill—there would probably be no strip steel mill in Scotland, because the most powerful steel interest in Scotland was Colville's. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) will bear me out in that. Colville's was dead against the strip steel mill. Colville's had to have its arms twisted. The Cabinet decision was taken against all the advice of Colville's. Sir Andrew McCance was very hostile to our former hon. Friend, Tom Fraser, and to what was said and done then.
I am merely suggesting timidly and modestly that a Scottish Government would almost certainly have taken the advice of the most powerful steelmaking interest in Scotland on the question whether or not to have a strip steel mill, and the advice would have been that there should be no strip steel mill. Therefore, we would have been in a very much worse position than we are in now.

Mr. Lambie: If I sometimes disagree with my hon. Friend it is because I used to attend classes which he organised under the National Council of Labour Colleges. If I make mistakes, it is because of bad training. A Scottish Government would have been a Labour Government, and in 1968 there would have been no Colville's. We would have had a nationalised steel industry in Scotland, which would have developed the Scottish steel industry for the benefit of the Scottish people.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend escaped my influence at an early stage and came under the influence of Bob Lambie—an excellent replica. If we talk about the importance of the Tail of the Bank when Scotland is at war, I suggest that similarly, with Great Britain now a part of Europe, the Tail of the Bank is important because of the North Atlantic and the access to and exit from Northern Europe. That is the importance of it when Britain is part of the EEC. Scotland and England form one of the walls of the North Sea, which is almost an inner lake. As part of the EEC we have an ideal site. Britain has the oil in the north. We have access to the Atlantic from Hunterston and the Clyde—the shortest way across the Atlantic. We are in a beautiful situation, right on the front street. If my hon. Friend will simply appreciate that and throw his considerable weight behind the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun, we shall much more quickly persuade our fellow Scots, including the Scottish Nationalists, to appreciate how much all this is tied up.
While I compliment him, I hope that on this occasion the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire will appreciate that what we are doing here must be done if we are to realise the advantages.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) made an important contribution to this debate, particularly when he dealt with the effect of this proposed measure on the steel industry as it now is, and to Members such as myself from the north-east of the country that is a matter of great concern. But, undeniably, it is a traumatic experience for people in a small area of the country to be in the spotlight of the whole national machine, being told that they are the foundation of the country's economic future, that they are a most important element whose development is absolutely essential for the future of Scotland. Such people are bound to feel that they have not been properly consulted, and that the interests of someone else are forcing them to come to a conclusion to which they have not been able to accustom themselves.
One hon. Member spoke about the juggernaut of the Government moving

along on a theme of this kind, and, of course, to the people I am talking about, this House is part of that juggernaut of the Government moving in on their lives in a way which they had not expected. If this House does not pay very real heed to the feelings of those people, it will be doing itself a very great disservice.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) was speaking for only a small minority, but he himself went on to speak for the interests of the whole Scottish people. He must accept that that minority is a very important element of this debate, and we have to consider its interests very carefully indeed.
I am not sure whether this is entirely a question of the beauty of an area being threatened by a development, because practical issues are also involved. There is a tendency in this House and in this country to decry nineteenth century industrial development as something that is very bad. In many ways that is absolutely true, but there was an enterprise, a spirit and a determination to succeed which we need very much. But I wonder whether what was really wrong with that development was that it was so higgledy-piggledy, because the Victorians did not have the planning techniques or the coordinated skills to make sure that that development fitted into the general framework of what was most suitable for the people involved, and because in many cases their interests were sacrificed.
Today we have those skills and those techniques, and we should be able effectively to plan and develop large-scale industries of the kind now proposed. However, I do not think there is a feeling among the general public that we can do that, so I hope that when he replies my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that we can provide the infrastructure—the roads, the houses, the schools and so on—and that we have plans to cater for the requirements of whatever population movements will be necessary to service this new development.
May I ask a question about the nuclear power station, because it has been suggested, particularly by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), that this became a safety factor only when there were oil refineries and so on, which


are not part of this Bill? I should have thought that a radiation leak was a safety matter even if there was only one individual within range of it, and, presumably, there will be many people working on a terminal of the kind proposed in this Bill. So I should like to know whether the safety factor has properly been taken into account. Finally, if the proposal is to present us with the entrance to and exit from Europe, hon. Members opposite will have to rethink very considerably their ideas on the subject.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), I have no intention of detaining the House for long, but it is important that someone who represents a constituency not directly affected by what happens in the Hunterston peninsula should say something on this important subject. The impact of what we are about to decide will spread far beyond the boundaries of Hunterston.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on her maiden speech. I am sure that she would agree that her predecessor, John Rankin, in the wonderful work that he did, provided a heritage for which the people of Govan will be most thankful in years to come. John Rankin's work is yet to be seen in the new Govan.
I shall take up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), and I regret that he is not here now. If it is wrong to pretend to the people of Hunterston and the Fairlie district that the terminal will not be a blight on the scenery, it is equally wrong for the House to pretend to those people that we do not hope that what we are about to decide tonight will lead to the complete industrialisation of the Hunterston peninsula.
My position and that of the vast majority of people in Scotland, I am sure, is that we hope that what we are about to decide tonight will trigger off that complete industrialisation. That includes the oil refineries which have already been referred to. I speak as a Member who represents the only constituency in Scotland with an oil refinery. It grieves me to hear hon. Members who are opposed

to, or who seek to insert reservations about, the industrialisation of Hunterston talk of the disadvantages that an oil refinery will bring to Hunterston and the surrounding area. I can assure the House that Grangemouth has certainly not suffered any disadvantage from having the oil refinery. The opposite is the case.
I discussed the matter on Friday on a television programme with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I invited the hon. Member, as I now invite any hon. Member, to come to Grangemouth and see how well-balanced and well-developed is the community there and how low is the level of pollution. With co-operation between the oil companies and the local authority we have been able to keep the pollution to a low and acceptable level. Other benefits accrue from the type of development we are talking about tonight. In the two and a half years that I have represented my constituency I have been able to see the benefits which can accrue from such projects and which I am sure could be provided at Hunterston.
In Grangemouth, for instance, there are an artificial ski slope and a brand new swimming pool. The second phase is being built of a new shopping centre. There is a wonderful sports complex, including a stadium. All those facilities are at Grangemouth because of the revenue which comes from the industrialisation of Grangemouth. Such revenue can accrue to the Hunterston area and West Central Scotland in general.
I take up briefly the point which was made by the hon. Member for Govan. The hon. Lady suggested that if all the plans for additional refining capacity in Scotland are met it is possible that we shall not need an oil refinery on the Hunterston peninsula. With great respect to her, the only plan to increase refining capacity in Scotland is a fairly obscure one to increase the refining capacity at Grangemouth from its present 9 million tons to what we hope will be 20 million tons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and I have repeatedly urged Sir Eric Drake and other senior BP directors to put a date on when expansion will take place. The plan for Grangemouth is the only proposal on the


drawing board for increasing refining capacity in Scotland. That is not enough. I have argued before in the House, and I do so again without apology, that if we as a nation are to derive the maximum benefit from North Sea oil it is essential that we get substantial additional refining capacity in Scotland. That capacity must include the building of an additional refinery at Hunterston.
I would argue—this may be sidestepping—that the building of one more additional refinery in the north or northeast of Scotland is not enough. There is ample evidence that the Middle East nations refine much beyond their total domestic capacity. There is no reason why Scotland should not do likewise.
I recognise, as many hon. Members have recognised, that in industrial developments such as the ore terminal, and what we hope will follow from it, a balance must be drawn between environmental considerations and the need for industrial development. I, like many other hon. Members, would commend the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire for the steady and consistent fight which he has put up on this issue. However, we are living in different conditions from those which prevailed in the mid-1960s. If we are to look to the future with some security, Hunterston is, in my view, the key to the future to the whole of Scotland.
I lend my support to the Bill not as a Member representing a Glasgow constituency or the Hunterston area but as a Member representing a constituency in a highly industrialised part of Scotland. I believe that I have the feeling and the ear of the people to whom I speak each weekend when I go home. I can assure the House that it is the view and the feeling of all those people that we should go ahead and develop this tremendous natural asset. I look forward to the development taking place as speedily as possible.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. William Small: It seems to have become a regular practice for me to have to make my speech as if I were running a four-minute mile. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on her maiden speech,

which showed her to be a first-class passenger. Hon. Members are now listening to the fellow in the guards van who, according to some people, knows very little.
For many years I sat as a district councillor within the Hunterston area. Lord Glasgow, the county convener, who resides in the area, is writing his memoirs. Whether it is legend or folklore I do not know, but he told me that Hunterston was granted to the Hunter family for raising falcons for the King's Falconry many years age. It has a complex heritage.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is properly representing the interests of his constituents, and I entirely accept his right to do that. Modern society is complex, and we should not forget Crichel Down.
I totally reject what was said by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), the former Secretary of State, another first-class passenger. He was a valid interlocutor on behalf of his constituents. The inquiry was concerned with oppression and civil rights. All those who were on the inquiry were fully aware of the arguments. The Reverend Dr. Gordon Weir and his colleagues and parishioners came up daily by train from Fairlie and West Kilbride to listen to them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) used emotive language. He engaged in political graffiti. He used the word "vandalism". Does he understand what it means, and where it comes from? For the benefit of uninformed hon. Members, Vandals and Goths ran side by side as two tribal races in Europe. It was the Vandals who, in 425, desecrated all the beauties of Rome. That is why desecration today is referred to as vandalism. That is just to give hon. Members the benefit of a little learning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) spoke of the choice between Ardrossan, Hunterston, Fairlie and other places. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that there were times when the mail boat could not land at Ardrossan. I do not decry Ardrossan as a harbour. I do not know the down time there, but in shipping there is a down time that has to be taken into account.


My colleagues know that I have travelled the international highway so that I bring a degree of knowledge to the subject before us. In the modern world deep water has become the new working capital. I do not want to boast about it, but I take an interest in shipping, and recently in Japan I looked at an order book showing orders of 9 million tons at one yard. Japanese international companies throughout the world now have 47 per cent. of the world's business, and hope to get 75 per cent. by 1985. The Japanese and others are thinking of building vessels of 200,000 tons and upwards. That is the sort of vessel we must think of in modern times and that is why a deep water terminal is so important.
We have had advice and evidence on this subject—giving us alternatives—about the mechanics of the situation; we have been told, for example, how to pump slurry 45 miles up to Motherwell. But we must strike a meaningful balance between this sort of development and the tranquility and peace to be enjoyed by people on the peninsula, and in particular the people of Hunterston. The people in the area have the doubtful benefits of Hunterston A and Hunterston B; they already have nuclear technocracy on their doorstep. There is a crusade by some people for a third nuclear power station at Hunterston. There is no doubt that once this Bill goes through Parliament, Hunterston will be in the economic mainstream of activity in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commissioners who examined the situation, is a kind of identikit Ralph Nader in tracking down abuses. Many of these matters are set out in Clause 10 of the Bill. Here I hope to get into the debate a little Latin. All the merchants in the past had a favourable attitude to lex gentium—the law of nations and civil law. There is also lex mercantoria which, I explain to those who do not know, relates to mercantile law. The authorities intend to write into the Bill provisions to protect the individual, and Clause 10 seeks to protect the tranquility of the area. This means that before they go ahead, the promoters must call in design experts. They will also have to make an annual report. The development of the site and the protection of amenities go hand in hand. This

has never happened in any society of which I have any knowledge.
I am 100 per cent. behind the Bill, and I shall support it tonight. Themis was the goddess of law and justice and her ministrations must come into our considerations when we agree to this Bill tonight.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: There are two reasons why I support the Bill. Before elaborating upon them, I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) in welcoming the conversion of at least one member—I put it no higher—of the Scottish National Party to the campaign for the development of Hunterston. We in South Ayrshire—indeed, all over Ayrshire—have always had as much opposition from SNP candidates as from the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to our campaign for the development of Hunterston.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should carry on the charge that was made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). It is not true that the Scottish National Party opposes the development of Hunterston. Whatever individuals may have said or done, the SNP's policy is in favour of the development, and every reference that I have made—the hon. Gentleman can check in HANSARD—has been wholeheartedly in favour of the development of Hunterston.

Mr. Sillars: I shall have to alter what I said. I now know two members of the Scottish National Party who are in favour of the development of Hunterston. I should have appreciated a statement as categorical as that during the South Ayrshire by-election when the SNP candidate attacked me on my support for Hunterston.
I sincerely regret the environmental damage that will be done to that part of the Clyde by the establishment of the ore terminal at Hunterston and the other developments that I hope will flow from our decision tonight. I do not say that in any bogus fashion. Like everyone else in Scotland, I love our environment. But there are occasions when industrial development and the retention of the environment are not compatible. That is the situation at Hunterston. Like my


hon. Friends the Members for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and Central Ayrshire, I feel it is as well to be honest and to state openly that environmental damage will be done. I believe that it must be done if we are to maintain economic momentum in Scotland.
The first reason for my support of the Bill is that I see the ore terminal construction as the forerunner of a number of developments that will open up the Hunterston area and bring it in to support the industrial structure for the benefit of Scotland.
The second reason is more short term in a sense, because of the ore terminal's importance to steel and steel-using industries in Scotland. The fact of the matter is that we must have the ore terminal. It has become an urgent necessity.
I should like to deal with the wider implications. I believe that once the ore terminal is started the demand for other developments, such as a general user port, the establishment of additional refinery capacity, engineering works, and so on, will grow. That in turn will exert pressure on both the British Steel Corporation and the Government to make a clear statement of intention about future policy for steel plant location in Scotland. It is also urgent that we get clarification about the BSC's future intentions in Scotland between now and the mid-1980s.
No one should underestimate the importance of Hunterston in the widest and long-term sense. It has a key rôle to play in extricating the economy of West Central Scotland from its future problems.
I ask the House to recall the statement made by the General Secretary of the Scottish TUC on 11th October this year. After a meeting with the Secretary of State, Jimmy Jack forecast a gross job loss in West Central Scotland of about 40,000 in the next decade due to decline in certain industries and technical changes in others. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with the General Secretary of the Scottish TUC. I know from my experience that he is not given to overstatement or exaggeration. He makes a statement only when he is pretty sure of his facts. I believe that we can take this statement on board as a factual situation into which we shall run in the

next 10 years. His statement illustrates the scale of the problem that we must tackle in the economy of West Central Scotland. I believe the build-up of the Hunterston potential will provide Scotland with a dynamic economic weapon for dynamic recovery and it is absolutely essential for the future, not only to West Central Scotland but to the Scottish economy as a whole.
I turn to the importance of the terminal in relation to the present steel and steel-using industries in Scotland. There are 330,000 men and women employed in metal manufacturing, engineering, shipbuilding, vehicle building—all the steel-user industries. That is out of a working population of just over 2 million. Almost every one of these people has as his primary source of employment iron ore which is taken into Scotland from Australia, South Africa, Scandinavia and South America. The point of entry for that ore, on its way to Lanarkshire to be turned into materials for those 330,000 people to use, is the General Terminus Quay in Glasgow, which suffers severe limitations both in the size of ships and tonnage which can be handled. It was designed to handle about 2·5 million tons of ore a year, and, if stretched, could possibly manage for a short period about 2·9 million tons. But I am reliably informed that because of the current development at Ravenscraig we shall have an ore import need of about 4 million tons a year, and the General Terminus Quay cannot handle that amount of ore. The ship tonnage it can accept is no more than about 28,000 tons, and we are living in a day and age when we are transhipping ore in cargoes of about 330,000 tons.
The Scottish steel industry cannot survive without the ore and we cannot get the ore without the terminal. This was recognised by the Secretary of State. In his major decision dated 9th December 1970 he dealt with the question of Hunterston's suitability compared with other places. On page 2 he says Hunterston is a deep-water shipping terminal. Part of the paragraph says:
The evidence taken at the inquiry appears to the Secretary of State clearly to demonstrate that for an all-purpose terminal for oceangoing carrier ships Hunterston is superior to the other sites considered at the inquiry, having regard to depth of water; number of days in the year for safe berthing; and cost of works for equipping the terminal.


Both Mr. Keith and the Secretary of State accepted the early need for an iron-ore terminal to replace the General Terminus Quay. Other sites were looked at by Mr. Keith and the Scottish Office, and both came to the conclusion that the ore terminal had to be at the Hunterston Portencross area. That was reinforced later in a general statement of guidance issued by the Secretary of State on 31st May 1973. In the part headed "Steel" he said:
The maintenance and development of a competitive steel industry is of basic importance to the Scottish economy, both because it is itself a large employer of labour and because the continued provision of an appropriate range of steel products in Scotland is important to the competitive position of steel using industries, such as engineering, shipbuilding and the manufacture of structures for North Sea oil.
Later the Secretary of State said:
This terminal will give the Scottish steel industry the advantage of access to a first class ore port capable of accommodating carriers of all sizes … The new terminal is therefore an essential development and the land has already been zoned for such a use.
The Secretary of State and others, and the Ayr County Council, which was the prime mover in this matter in the first place, took all matters into consideration—questions of environment, amenity, and the possibility of transport of the ore through the slurry method, which is not feasible except at enormous cost, at Ravenscraig. They all came to the inescapable conclusion that the terminal was an urgent necessity.
I end my brief remarks with a quotation from a letter sent by the county convener of Ayrshire to the Largs and Millport Weekly News. It is appropriate to quote the county convener because, with the vast majority of his county council, Mr. William Paterson, probably more than anyone else, has been at the forefront in the fight for the development of the ore terminal at Hunterston.
In his long letter setting out the position he deals with the ore terminal and writes:
West Central Scotland cannot afford to reject the opportunities for new and major economic growth which are offered by the potential of Hunterston. The development of the ore terminal will be the first essential step towards the realisation of these opportunities. I say again that the case for the terminal is overwhelming.
I agree with Mr. Paterson, and I know that the vast majority of people in Ayr-

shire agree with him. What is more, I believe that this House will endorse the view that the case for the terminal is overwhelming.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
No one can say that the Bill has been rushed. It was back in 1966 when the planning of the area from the Clyde right down was undertaken. After that, the Ayr County Council decided to apply to the Scottish Office for the re-zoning of a specific piece of land round there. That brought us to 1969. There were objections, with the result that In, as Secretary of State, had to order a public inquiry. I can remember the disquiet expressed by Conservative Members at the time.
It was in July 1969 that the present Secretary of State, who should have known better because there was an inquiry in process, urged us that time was of the essence. At that time he was thinking not just of an ore terminal but of a steelworks, and the rest. When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition he could say freely that he had no doubt that Hunterston was the best site in the whole of Europe—that it was certainly a better site for a major steel development and in terms of priority than the British Steel Corporation, under the present Government, was later prepared to grant it.
We have spent a long time on this proposal and there is some justification for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) about urgent decisions which have to be made and on which it may be that the prosperity of the country depends.
I can remember how, in 1966, we decided to create a new development in the Borders, at a place called Tweed-bank. Only this year have we managed to get the land for it. That is an indication of the extent to which people can justifiably object and use all the processes of law to put forward their own points of view. Accordingly, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on the fight that he has put up, especially bearing in mind that this order itself was first applied for in March 1971 and that here we are in December 1973.
I do not know about the right hon. Member for Argyll, who was Secretary of State before me, but I remember being told early on that General Terminus Quay could not last much longer, in view of the developments affecting ore-carrying vessels. Leaving aside expansion, I was told that if we wanted to see the continuation of the Scottish steel industry we had to do something about getting a new ore terminal. There has been reference to Ardrossan and Ardmore. Both were considered during the inquiry. Long before the inquiry Colville's had considered Ardrossan and ruled it out because of the difficulties there. At this late stage, after two inquiries and after the Parliamentary Commissioners have looked at this, it is wrong to suggest that something has been overlooked. I do not think that anything has been overlooked.
I can understand the feelings of people who are suddenly being robbed of what they thought was theirs, probably for their lifetime—the view of the estuary and the sea. In 1956 I built a house in Ayr. From the rear I had a view right to the Hills of Craigie. The Minister knows the place. Now I look out on to a forest of houses—for those living in them very desirable houses—which have taken that view away. We cannot judge this matter entirely on a selfish basis. There is more in this than a house to live in. Upon this depends the future prosperity of Scotland.
It is wrong to suggest that we need only the ore terminal. It would be wrong to have a single development here. That would not justify the change. The original inquiry covered much more than that. It covered an application for an oil refinery from Chevron. There is also the question of steel development. We should be told shortly whether we are to have that development. Even the steel corporation takes it for granted. I think that it has made application in respect of certain land to be retained for possible development there.
We cannot laugh off the future and say that there are plenty of facilities elsewhere. There is certainly not sheltered water elsewhere. Where is the ideal place for this development? It is at Cairnryan, where there were big developments during the war. However, factors such as

sheltered water, depth of water and the hinterland rule that out. I am sorry that we have not had any suitable development there. The railways are there. For the same reason, Ardrossan would have been fine. People do not rush at these things and take the most unsuitable site for one reason alone. It is the unique quality of this site which commends it to so many people.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small). I remember when in the debate on the North Wales Order, we had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald). Those of us who heard it will never forget it. It was a fantastic speech. I wish that the people who write in the Sunday Express had read it, because then they would not have written what they wrote last weekend. We shall not forget the speech of my hon. Friend tonight, nor shall we forget the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton)—an intervention to cap the list of Lex Romana—Lex McLean.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May the Chair be permitted to share the right hon. Gentleman's pearls?

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an esoteric joke among Scots. I am sorry if you have not heard of Lex McLean: you have missed a lot.
We will not quarrel tonight with the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) said: hers was one of the best speeches that we have seen here for a long time—and I say "seen" quite rightly. I welcomed the hon. Lady's tribute to John Rankin and the work that he has done.
The case has been pretty well proved. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is going to lose his case, because he has fought so hard. I am not so sorry for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), for all his talk about beauty. This is an area over which few people have the privilege of walking. I have never done so. The hon. Member took refuge in the fact that it was a wonderful view from many places. He does not mind if the view is spoiled down the coast a little, so long as it does not reach Ballochmyle or Ayr, or other sacred places.
We must have balance. Of course we do not want the environment and an irreplaceable heritage unnecessarily spoiled. This is why I am worked up about 28 places where, according to the Scottish Office, concrete rigs could be built. That is nonsense, especially since it would be a temporary development. The subject of this Bill is very different; the whole continuation or survival of the industry of central Scotland may depend upon it. We cannot afford not to develop here because of the scenery. I am an Ayrshire man and am reluctant to give up any beautiful part of Ayrshire, but we must do so here because so much depends upon it.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was wrong to suggest that but for him this matter would have slipped through. After all this time and all the shouting, there was never a chance that it would.

Sir F. Maclean: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if I had not objected we should not have had a debate on this measure?

Mr. Ross: We have had debates and we shall have more debates, I am sure, because the Bill deals only with the ore terminal.

Sir F. Maclean: I am talking about the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I am talking about the whole of Hunterston. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that, and also appreciates the Secretary of State's attitude.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). I am sure that he had in mind the feelings in his constituency and in Peterhead when some changes were suggested up there. We did not take three months to deal with that, but that did not stop the present Secretary of State attacking me for daring to have a Committee stage for the Bill to enable the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East and me to talk and to allow the Scottish Office to soothe the feelings of the people in the area. The subject of this Bill has been discussed for well over six years and is of vital importance.
I hope that the hon. Member will think again about dividing the House. There have been so many voices in support of this project that he would be wrong to do so. He has made a good fight for his cause, but it would be wrong to divide the House.

9.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): This is a Private Bill and it is not for me to sum up the debate, but it might be convenient if I indicated the Government's views and answered some questions at this stage.
May I add my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) on her maiden speech? We all agree that it was a most effective contribution, and we much enjoyed the hon. Lady being here. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I hope to meet her here often, and to hear her often. I hope that she might add to her laurels, which are great, by ensuring that her excellent speech is the longest that she will ever make. If she does that she will have a fine career, and we all welcome her here.
I must confine myself to the Bill which I remind hon. Members relates to the provision of an ore terminal, and not to any of the other interesting matters which we have discussed. However, I have noted most carefully those other matters which are not directly relevant to the ore terminal and I shall draw them to the attention of those of my right hon. Friends who are involved, and see that they are taken into account.
We have had a most interesting debate with varying views from many hon. Members. Not for the first time the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) takes the laurels for the most interesting and varied contribution. But I take him to task on one matter upon which, I hope not deliberately, he totally misled the House, and in doing so did a great disservice either to the Goths or to the Vandals, or both. If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the Library, he will see that it was the Goths who sacked Rome in 410 AD and the Vandals in 510 AD. I hope that he will make apologies in the due quarter for that matter.
The real issue which I ought to comment on is directly relevant to the Bill. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on his speech and on the way he has fought for his constituents' views, which are very important. He has, as we would expect, done so exceptionally well. I hope that he accepts that the House, as a whole, has demonstrated this evening that it is most appreciative of what he has done and that it has listened most carefully to the views he has put forward on behalf of his constituents. I ask him to accept one other thing from me. Although his constituents cannot but be distressed at what is happening to the neighbourhood in which they live—and I fully understand their concern—I hope they will not feel that their objections have been treated lightly, or hastily, or that they have not been listened to or have been brushed over. Everyone has listened to, and carefully studied, all that has been said on behalf of the area. I say to those in the area that we recognise absolutely their right to feel the way they do and we have listened most carefully to their views.
The only thing I could say which would satisfy them and my hon. Friend would be that I feel that there should not be any development and that I do not think that there should be an ore terminal. That would satisfy them in every way, but I and my right hon. Friend have to take a difficult decision. If we were to agree with the views of every person, in every locality, in every part of Scotland, there would not be any development anywhere. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) that we have to make the particularly difficult decision which he asked us not to make. The decision is whether we must reluctantly spoil a beautiful part of the Clyde coast, and accept the consequences, or whether we put the interests of the Scottish economy, and the prosperity of thousands of workers, as being more important, on balance, than the amenity of the area. I hope that I have demonstrated that I feel strongly about this, and am sad that it will mean that there will be some diminution of the amenity of the area. But on balance the interest of the economy as a whole does in this

instance have to take priority. There cannot be any question of the Government being neutral. We give our support to what the Bill is trying to do.
On the question of hastening the consideration of this project and the alternatives, such as using Ardrossan, I ask my hon. Friend to reflect again about the extreme length of the inquiry and the comprehensiveness of everything discussed. It was a long inquiry—probably the longest we have ever had in Scotland. It examined the most that migh happen on the Hunterston peninsula—not just what we are discussing tonight. That is to say, it considered the possibility of an ore terminal, a general user port, a huge integrated steel works employing 10,000 to 12,000 men, and a substantial oil refinery as well. In the time available, I cannot go over all the evidence submitted, even if it were proper to do so. But I want to make a few points to show that charges of inadequate consideration or overriding of evidence are quite unfounded.
With one exception, all the relevant topics were covered at length at the inquiry—the suitability of Hunterston as a terminal for both the largest ships and the smaller; the ease and safety of the navigational approaches; the prospective need of certain industries to use extra-large ships; the impact on the environment and on tourism; the merits or demerits of any alternative sites; the effect of the presence on the site of nuclear power stations, and so on. The report was very full by any standard, and my right hon. Friend's decisions were based on its findings. One may disagree with the conclusions of reports from time to time, but one cannot say in this case that it was not exhaustive.
We have also had it suggested that the reporter's recommendations were against what my right hon. Friend decided. I cannot accept all of that as being true. It would be an odd situation if a reporter in an inquiry had to be followed in all cases. I am sure that the House would not accept such a doctrine. It must be for the Secretary of State to make the decision and take the consequences of doing so. That is part of our system. My right hon. Friend did not abide strictly by every one of the reporter's recommendations, but the extent to which


he departed from them has been wildly exaggerated.
First, the reporter firmly recommended approval of the ore terminal, which is what we are considering tonight. His recommendation flowed from his acceptance of the supremacy of Hunterston as a terminal for both extra-large and smaller ships. He recommended against the immediate zoning of land for steel industry development, but he clearly envisaged that that development might be justifiable in certain circumstances. He recommended against an oil refinery, largely on the evidence of refinery capacity in relation to demand as it was presented to him at the time. My right hon. Friend accepted that recommendation at the time while nothing that circumstances might change.
I stress all this because of the degree of distortion of truth which has come from some quarters—in some of the letters which my right hon. Friend has received, for instance, from people living in the area since the specific proposals for the ore terminal were put forward and planning permission was given for the landward works. These have implied that my right hon. Friend's decision disregarded all the evidence and ran counter to the reporter's recommendation. I am bound to say that the writers of some of these letters either have not troubled to look up the facts or have chosen deliberately to ignore them.
No one denies that there will be a significant loss of amenity when Hunterston is developed. I have not sought to do so. My right hon. Friend very much regrets it. But loss of amenity in particular cases must be weighed against the social and economic gains generally. These are very difficult decisions and have to be taken by someone. The Govern-

ment have taken this decision, and that is why we give our support to the Bill.
I was asked to say something about nuclear safety, and I can give an assurance on that which I hope the House will accept. The latest oil refinery applications which have come in have called for detailed scrutiny from the point of view of nuclear safety in general My right hon. Friend has not yet got the results of the scrutiny, but he will give full weight to the needs of nuclear safety when he gets its conclusions. I hope that the time he has been prepared to wait whilst this question is examined thoroughly shows that he is genuinely concerned to ensure that no avoidable risks are taken. I hope that assurance will be welcomed by the House.

Dr, Dickson Mabon: When is the Secretary of State likely to get the report from the Nuclear Inspectorate?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give a definite date, but I understand that it will be a few weeks before we can expect to receive the recommendations.
I have taken quite long enough. I would close by once more saying to my hon. Friend that we very well appreciate how he and his constituents feel, but we feel, and my right hon. Friend feels, that, on balance, we have to take this difficult decision in the interests of the economy and of the steel industry in Scotland, which, in this case, call for some sacrifices, and one of them, I regret to say, may be some of the amenity in what is a very beautiful area.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to be considered tomorrow.

GRENADA

9.50 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I beg to move,
That the Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Will hon. Members who are going out please do so quietly?

Lord Balniel: The order will be made under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. It will terminate the status of association of Grenada with the United Kingdom. Grenada will then be an independent sovereign State. It is proposed that the order should come into effect on 7th February 1974. The Act requires that any order made under this section must be laid in draft before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Grenada is the first of the associated States to propose to move to complete independence. I believe that the House will wish the Government and people of Grenada well at this important moment in their history.
As this is the first of the associated States to move towards complete independence it is perhaps right that I should underline the fact that the constitutional position of Grenada is not that of a normal dependent territory advancing towards independence. She already has full internal self-government, covering every aspect of her internal affairs. Our responsibility is confined to the fields of defence and foreign affairs. This has been the constitutional position since 1967 when Grenada became an associated State as defined in the West Indies Act 1967.
In moving the Second Reading of the West Indies Bill on 31st January 1967 the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs said that its purpose was to give effect to the conclusions of conferences held with certain Caribbean countries which decided
that the present colonial relationship with Britain should cease, and should be replaced by a new pattern of association with us. This would be free and voluntary; it could be

ended by either country at any time, and under it the associated State would be fully self-governing in all its internal affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1967; Vol. 740, c. 335.]
Each associated State was given the power to terminate association with Britain unilaterally in two ways, either in association with another Caribbean Commonwealth country by a vote of two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature, or, alternatively, on its own, unilaterally, by a similar vote followed by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. This is the procedure provided for in Section 10(1) of the West Indies Act 1967.
Her Majesty's Government were also empowered to terminate association, but they undertook not to do so unilaterally without giving six months' notice of their intention. The whole intention of that Act was that it should become easier for an associated State to achieve independence. It could achieve independence unilaterally, Her Majesty's Government could give independence by acting unilaterally, or an associated State could move to independence by mutual agreement, for it was not intended that Her Majesty's Government should be inhibited from using their powers to grant independence in circumstances in which they would regard it as proper to grant independence to a colony.
Those circumstances are well known to the House—that the Government of a colony should request independence and Her Majesty's Government should be satisfied that there is adequate support locally for the request, and that the independence constitution adequately protected the rights of minorities.
The background to Grenada's request is that a General Election was held in Grenada on 28th February 1972, and the Premier, Mr. Gairy, made his intention of seeking early independence the first item on his programme. His party won 13 out of the 15 seats in the House of Representatives. He then asked the British Government to grant independence to Grenada under the procedure laid down in Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. Talks were held in London in October 1972, attended both by the Premier and by the Leader of the Opposition in Grenada, at which it was


agreed that there should be a constitutional conference in May 1973. The constitutional conference, again attended by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in Grenada, was held in London from 14th to 18th May 1973.
At the conference there was general agreement on the terms of a constitution for an independent Grenada. The text followed very' closely the text of the present constitution. This was largely because the present constitution was drafted with eventual independence in mind. In particular, the constitution for independent Grenada contains all the safeguards for human rights and for minorities which are embodied in the present constitution.
The Leader of the Opposition, however, in a letter dated 17th May 1973, withdrew his agreement on the ground that the people of Grenada objected to the proposed method of granting independence to Grenada. The report of the constitutional conference, which was signed by all the delegates, was published in Command Paper 5379. This paper also contained Her Majesty's Government's subsequent undertaking which was conveyed to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in a message dated 29th May and delivered on 31st May. That undertaking was that, subject to the approval of Parliament, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared in due course to recommend to the Queen that an Order in Council should be made under Section 10(2) of the Act to terminate the status of association of Grenada with the United Kingdom as from a date to be specified in the order.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is it known why the Premier of Grenada, in the face of the resistance of the Opposition to the proposal, decided to leave—I shall not use the word "odium"—the responsibility for the granting of independence to Her Majesty's Government under Section 10(2), instead of facing the challenge of seeking the support of his own people by a referendum under Section 10(1)?

Lord Balniel: I do not think it is for me to speak for the Premier of Grenada. He is the judge of his own actions. But I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it was never the

intention of hon. Gentlemen when they were in office that an associated State, which was designed to have a constitutional status closer to independence than any colony which had full internal self-government, should have to go over the additional hurdle of the referendum, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, under the Section 10(1) procedure, when the normal processes between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the associated State could lead to mutual agreement towards independence. I will happily elaborate on that point later if the explanation I have given does not satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: If the constitution was not so designed, what was the point of Section 10(1) providing for transition to independence?

Lord Balniel: The point was very clear. The point was to enable the associated State of Grenada to move to independence in spite of the opposition of this country. It would be able to move to independence if it obtained a two-thirds majority in its Parliament and a two-thirds majority in a referendum, irrespective of the agreement of this country. That was the purpose of the Section 10(1) procedure.
Perhaps I may conclude this short history of events by saying that at subsequent talks with the Premier in July 1973 it was agreed that the aim should be that Grenada should become independent on 7th February 1974. The matter of independence has, therefore, been the major issue at the General Election, in which the Government won 13 out of the 15 seats. It has been the subject of a constitutional conference. There has subsequently been very full discussion on the independence constitution in Grenada. Resolutions have been passed unanimously in the House of Representatives and in the Senate of Grenada on 13th and 15th October, requesting that the association with Britain should be terminated. We believe that the Government of Grenada have the general support of the Grenada people in requesting that Grenada's association with this country should be terminated, and that it would be right to meet this request and not to oppose it. I therefore seek the approval of the House of the


draft Order in Council terminating association with Britain which is now laid before it.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him whether this order applies to the island of Grenada alone, or whether it includes all the Grenadine islands?

Lord Balniel: It includes all the territories which are within the associated State of Grenada.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As the Minister of State has told us, this order terminates the association of Grenada with the United Kingdom as from 7th February 1974, and it confers complete independence on the territory and people for whose well-being this country and its Parliament have been responsible for very many years. The people of Grenada are not directly represented in this House, and it is, therefore, our duty to put a number of points to the Minister before this order is approved, particularly as certain evidence and allegations have been brought to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially in the last few days. I was very glad to hear the Minister of State indicate that, before the end of this debate, he may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, with leave, intervene again to elucidate or augment the statement that he has just made.
The order is made under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967, whereby status of association may be terminated by Order in Council unilaterally by this country. The very pertinent intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) highlighted the major cause of unease on both sides of the House about the way in which the order has been generated. The Minister fairly indicated two alternative methods of proceeding to grant independence in this case. But he was not clear in telling the House why the British Government did not in the light of all the evidence available to them decide that the initiative in this case might well come from Grenada itself, so that the wholly satis-

factory method of consulting the people of Grenada by referendum could have been utilised.
The first question, therefore, is why this method of unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, although perfectly permissible under the Act, was adopted when it seemed abundantly clear that an appreciable minority of the people of Grenada had been for some time, and still were, opposed to independence at this stage in these circumstances. The Minister indicated that the General Election of February 1972 had delivered a result in which the Government party, the Grenada United Labour Party, won all but two of the seats. He did not add that the popular vote had yielded a majority for the Government party of 59 per cent., which is a substantial majority, which nevertheless fell substantially short of the two-thirds majority which a referendum would have required.
Opponents of the régime allege that the election was marked by very serious irregularities. I admit that Grenada, as a wholly self-governing State in regard to its internal affairs, could not be interfered with in the conduct of its elections. Nevertheless, we hope to hear from the Minister that he had come to the conclusion, after considering this and other matters relating to the application for independence, that on balance such irregularities were not of such a character as to thwart arguments for proceeding in the way in which the Government acted.
There have been for some time, and there continue to be, deep-seated apprehensions among a substantial body of the people of Grenada that independence will open the door to systematic suppression of human rights and civil liberties in the new State. It is asserted that even before independence, when the associated State had control over its own internal affairs, such action was prevalent, that the elections of 1972 were rigged, that the Grenada Government have resorted from time to time to the use of para-military groups to consolidate their position——

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: If we are to have allegations and assertions may we have their source?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is well aware of the source. I am trying to save


the time of the House by not giving detailed sources. He is aware that in the past week or so there have been a great many documented allegations. I have said that it is asserted in the sense that it is alleged. I am not trying to prejudge the issue. I am putting to the House that there is an undeniable amount of assertion and allegation on the lines which I have suggested. We seek an assurance before the end of the debate that Her Majesty's Government have carefully and comprehensively considered the evidence—if evidence it is—which tends to weigh the balance in favour of the decision which they took.
Apart from the formation and the use of para-military forces, which are repugnant to any democrat, it is suggested that dissidents have been brutally attacked, that the Opposition have had little or no opportunity of putting their point of view in the Press or on the radio, that the right to appeal has been denied and that the administration of justice generally has been, to say the least, irregular. Whether or not those allegations are justified, the House will wish to be assured that Her Majesty's Government gave them full consideration during and after the Marlborough House conference of last May.
The Minister of State gave such an undertaking when he made a statement in answer to a Written Question on 11th June this year:
I said that I and the United Kingdom delegation had listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by both the Grenada Government delegation and the Opposition delegation …".
He said that Her Majesty's Government would take:
carefully into acount not only everything that had been said at the conference but also all other information that was available …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June 1973; Vol. 857, c. 248–9.]
The House would like to hear a little more about the extra information—namely, information other than the arguments presented at the conference, which weighed with the Government. I understand that the so-called British Government representative and his deputy paid a number of special visits to Grenada and brought back with them special reports to the Government. It

would be helpful if the Minister of State found it possible to give the House some idea of what the reports contained.
Since the Minister made the statement which I have quoted there have been further disturbances, including widespread strikes and attacks upon citizens by para-military formations, leading to a confrontation with Premier Gairy, when representatives of various bodies in Grenada, including trade unions, professional associations, the churches and the Chamber of Commerce, discussed the complaints. It was agreed to set up a commission of inquiry into a number of matters, including unlawful arrests, allegations of police brutality, the refusal of bail and the general administration of justice in the State, and to make specific recommendations upon breaches of the constitution as disclosed before the commission.
I understand that the police auxiliaries have now been disbanded and that the strikes have been called off. So far so good. However, the question is raised by many in Grenada whether the undertakings will survive the granting of independence. Premier Gairy's agreement to set up such a commission and to accept its recommendations, if fully implemented, will reflect wise statesmanship on his part and will contribute markedly to the essential unity of his people as they enter this important stage in their history. I hope that it goes from this House to the Government and people of Grenada that this is what the British Government, the British Parliament and the British people expect of the régime in Grenada if and when independence is granted.
There are undoubted apprehensions about the future economic viability of Grenada, especially as it moves into the testing waters of independence. The evidence drawn from OECD and United Nations sources and even from Whitaker's Almanac is that Grenada suffers from a high cost of living, high levels of unemployment and serious and continuing falls in the production of the agricultural produce on which its economy so largely depends. At the same time it is argued that little or no attempt has been made by the administration to diversify agriculture, let alone industry generally, and that tourism and the service industries have not only failed so far to solve these problems but that over-dependence


upon those industries may not prove to be an unmixed blessing.
The service industries tend to accentuate the dependence of territories such as these on external interests, with land and property being increasingly taken over by outside speculators, and profits being largely remitted to North America and Western Europe. There are anxious overtones to these economic apprehensions—the fear of racial resentments emerging in the new State, giving a fillip to black power extremists and the opportunity for Mafia-like take-over of the country. These are real apprehensions. One hopes that they are greatly exaggerated, but the facts of the economic position are not exaggerated; they are provable from dependable sources.
To sum up, there are two questions on which the House, and certainly the Opposition, will wish to have further assurance when the Minister of State again intervenes. First, are the Government satisfied that the people of Grenada have been properly consulted on this development and its timing? Secondly, in all the political and economic circumstances, are the Government satisfied that the new State moves into independence in a politically and economically viable condition?
I have one or two additional points. First, the transfer of power must be the result of extremely careful consideration and preparation, especially of timing, before it is granted. It should not be rushed as a matter of convenience to this country but introduced as a well-prepared opportunity for the people concerned.
There is an impression in Grenada—I put it no higher than that—that the speed with which this transfer has been brought forward betrays a certain impatience or hurry on the part of Her Majesty's Government to be rid of a small but difficult problem. I hope that we can assure the people of Grenada, with whom we have ties of long-standing friendship and affection, in such a way that they will be disabused of any such impression.
Secondly, there arises the question whether the creation of micro-States is the best, or even the inevitable, policy in respect of tiny dependencies still in care. Nobody in this House will minimise the difficulties or benefits. I have some experience of the difficulties of persuading

small States to come together in a meaningful association, but surely it is time for a reappraisal of this method of launching small islands and doubtfully viable territories into full independence.
Thirdly, there is the question of aid. Within our capacity this country will provide economic and financial assistance to the new State. A much more important source of aid will be the centralised agency of the EEC, which is linked to a form of association between individual State recipients. There is also the aid available through the various agencies of the United Nations. We all hope that such aid will be generous. The new State will need all the help it can get. I also hope that in these cases the donors will make it clear that the recipients will observe the basic rights and freedoms. We all subscribe to the general principle that aid should be without strings. I define that phrase, as I am sure do my hon. Friends, as meaning that aid must not be linked to conditions relating to the economic sovereignty of the recipient state, but surely it is a sensible requirement on the part of donor countries or donor agencies that recipients should observe the basic rights set down by the United Nations Organisation and, indeed, as promoted by our own Commonwealth of nations.
At this point I can do better than quote Premier Gairy's words at the Marlborough House conference. They are to be found on page 11 of the White Paper on the Grenada Constitutional conference—Command 5379—and form part of his speech at that conference:
We reiterate that the ideal of free men enjoying freedom from fear and want can be best achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and political, civil and cultural rights.
That could not be better said, and in applauding those words we look forward to the deeds which will implement them. After all, the new State will become a sister-State of ours in the Commonwealth.
If the order goes through we expect and hope that the United Kingdom will sponsor Grenada's membership of the Commonwealth and, indeed, of the United Nations. Those two world-wide organisations seek to implement in deeds the very words that Premier Gairy so eloquently uttered at the Marlborough House conference.
I hope that the Minister of State will intervene before the end of the debate to reassure many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the way that this transfer has been prepared and the future of the new State.
I am pleased to see in his place the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), who served with distinction as a Minister in the Commonwealth Office. He knows this area extremely well. Both he and I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nassau a few years ago. I think that we shall hear from both sides of the House concern whether this transfer has been done in the right way and whether the future rights of the people of Grenada are reasonably assured.

10.27 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I fully share the unease expressed by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), and I join him in expressing the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will seek permission to address the House further.
As my right hon. Friend said, if this order is agreed Grenada will be the first of the associated States to achieve full sovereign independence. Therefore, what we do now is of significance to the remaining associated States.
Normally, whenever this final legislative step to independence is taken—a supremely important, historic, irrevocable step for the people concerned—an independence Bill is brought before Parliament. We then have the opportunity of discussing citizenship provisions, defence arrangements, economic prospects, and so on. Quite rightly, we in this sovereign Parliament wish to be assured that the transfer of power to people for whom we have been responsible—in this case for more than 200 years—will advance their true interests and enhance their liberties. Of course, looking back over the years, we also take the opportunity of wishing them well.
It is a matter of especial pride to members of all political parties that we have done this on a score or more of occasions in the last two decades as tutelage over our dependencies has given way to partnership within the wider Commonwealth.

What is happening in this instance? The order, in cold legal language, simply states that the status of association of Grenada with the United Kingdom will be terminated as from 7th February 1974.
My hon. Friend told us that we have no option, that this debate is just a formality, because Grenada already possesses full internal self-government, and that, provided that certain provisions in the 1967 statute are complied with, what is being done here is a pure technicality. However, there seems to be some doubt about that. After all, we have, in the person of a former Attorney-General, a legal luminary of great standing, someone who has already thrown great doubt upon the matter. But my hon. Friend tells us that we have no option.
Thus, the ending of association means, if we pass this motion tonight, and the rest of the parliamentary process is completed, that Grenada becomes fully independent and the last links are severed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon for what he said about my association with these matters. I have some knowledge of the Caribbean. I have a deep affection for its peoples, and I suppose that, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have known most of its leaders for many years. I am conscious too of the way in which the Jamaicans, the Trindadians and the Barbadians in independence have adhered firmly to the concept and practice of parliamentary democracy and to the rule of law. That is why I am not at all happy with what is being done here.
Let us ask ourselves: what are the conditions under which the people of Grenada will move into full independence? I quote from The Guardian of 24th November—after this order had been laid before Parliament. It said:
Eric Gairy, the flamboyant strong-arm Premier of the Caribbean island of Grenada, which becomes independent from Britain in 10 weeks' time, is expected to reply today to demands from a wide cross-section of Grenadians that he disbands his régime's notorious secret police force. Over the past week a wave of strikes has begun to bring life on the island to a halt in an effort to end the shootings, beatings and house searches which have become common since Mr. Gairy recruited his 100-strong 'police aid' of armed civilian toughs three years ago.
This is a leading, respected, liberal newspaper.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain to the House why The Guardian, which is such a liberal and respected newspaper having written an article in terms which can only be described as inflammatory, failed even to comment on the fact that within three days the strike was over and Mr. Gairy had promised to set up a commission of inquiry?

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own way, in accordance with the brief which he has received.

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Thomas rose——

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. "A brief which the hon. Member has received"—that is a rather curious statement to make. I do not know whether the hon. Member would care to elaborate upon it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir Bernard Braine: It was quite clear, when the hon. Gentleman interrupted his right hon. Friend, that he was ready to rush into making statements before he had heard the whole of the case. He is repeating this tactic in what is only the third speech in the debate. I am purporting to deal with the sequence of events, and the hon. Member is merely prolonging my speech.

Sir Elwyn Jones: May I intervene to maintain the calm temperature? It may well be that what my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) has in mind, as he is a distinguished member of the Bar, is that the use of the expression by the hon. Member that he had received a brief might be thought to connote that he was receiving some sort of consideration. If the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that no such idea entered his normally fair-minded and clear mind I am sure that the debate can resume on the reasonable basis upon which a great constitutional debate should proceed.

Sir Bernard Braine: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no such thought entered my mind. It

was the amateur way in which the intervention was made that disturbed me.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: That is adding insult to injury.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is open to all hon. Members to make their points. I intend making mine. In my own way and with regard to the proper sequence of events.
The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) interrupted me. I do not know whether he knew what I was about to quote from The Guardian. The report continues:
Mr. Gairy has openly said the force, which the islanders compare to Haiti's Tontons Macoutes, is to crush his political opponents. … The latest crisis, which is more serious than the strikes and protests staged last May while Mr. Gairy was away in London negotiating independence, was sparked by the savage beating by the secret police last Sunday of three leaders of the popular radical 'new jewel' movement, whose non-violent, nationalist, self-help ideas have gained wide support in the island over the past year.
The Guardian names three men, who were treated brutally, saying
Maurice Bishop, Unison Whiteman and Selwyn Strachan were thrown in gaol for 25 hours, with serious head injuries, broken jaws and teeth left untended before being taken to hospital.
I have in my possession photographs showing the injuries of some of the men concerned. At the end of the debate, I shall hand them to my right hon. Friend so that they may be forwarded to the commission of inquiry to which the right hon. Member for Caernarvon referred.
I may add that the situation has not gone unnoticed in the rest of the Carribbean. Let me quote from a widely read and much respected West Indian newspaper, the Barbados Advocate. It reported on 25th November:
Grenada, on the threshold of independence, continues to show a lack of the goodwill that is essential to nation-building in a democracy. Recent developments there involving the arrest of members of the New Jewel Movement; beatings of people who have been known to be critical of the policy of the Gairy government; and far from satisfactory performances by certain sections of the Court, especially where the recently arrested Jewel Movement members were concerned, all provide a disheartening picture of the future of this picturesque island.
The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in raising this matter.
As the Barbados Advocate report says:
Grenada is far from being a happy island and the signing of documents to bring independence will be no panacea, nor any guarantee that such happiness as is desired will automatically surface. The fears might well grow that in independence the situation is likely to grow worse. And in Grenada the signs of the times are that this could be a real fear.
What are the signs of the times? Mr. Eric Pierre, the General Secretary of the Grenada Seamen's and Waterfront Workers' Union, sent a telegram to me and to the right hon. Gentleman in which he said:
Grenada Government recruited and armed ex-convicted thugs into special secret police force which has gone on a wave of beating up and terrorising suspected opposition elements. Many persons seriously wounded and hospitalised. Citizens Committee organised representing 22 organisations including heads of churches, trade unions, commercial, civil and others staged total shutdown of island in protest against police brutality and deprivation of basic human rights … Committee to meet December 11th"—
that is today—
to review Government implementation of agreement reserving right to take further action if necessary.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Abertillery wishes to intervene on that point to suggest that this communication from an important trade union leader in Grenada should be disregarded.
Are these exaggerations? The truth must be established. I have mentioned the photographs which have been handed to me. No doubt all this will be investigated by the commission of inquiry which the Premier has been obliged to set up because of public feeling in Grenada. The commission has been set up under the chairmanship of an eminent former Chief Justice of Jamaica, and it is composed of distinguished jurists drawn from all over the Caribbean. I do not doubt that such a body will do its duty and do much to restore confidence and calm in Grenada.
But this situation as I have described it was known to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it decided to present the order. Mention has been made of a General Election. Elections take place and situations change. How can the Government proceed with an order of this kind at a time when it is manifestly clear that the people of Grenada have

grown distrustful of their Government and are terrified of its brutality. The order should not have been brought forward at this time. It should not be approved tonight. Better to have waited until the commission of inquiry has completed its investigations and after confidence had been restored in Grenada. Better still to have provided a referendum on the whole issue of ending association at this time.
Let me make it plain that I believe firmly in granting independence wherever possible. I glory in the free association which the Commonwealth of self-governing nations implies and which Grenada, I feel sure, in the fullness of time will join. There is no question of anyone here clinging on to old-fashioned notions of empire. But independence must be true independence for all the people concerned, and not a carte blanche for a brutal régime which happens to occupy the seat of power for the moment to do what it will.
I ask my right hon. Friend to take this order back, to think again and not to bring it back until the news coming from Grenada is that the people there are breathing again in freedom from fear.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that time is not unlimited and that it would be helpful if hon. Members, in their wisdom, decided to keep their speeches fairly short.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I particularly welcome this debate, not only because of its subject matter but because it affords one of our rare opportunities to focus attention on the Caribbean, if only on a comparatively small part of it. We have not given the area the kind of attention in foreign affairs debates that it deserves, which is perhaps surprising because it is of increasing importance. It is significant strategically and as a source of important natural resources.
The Caribbean is the scene today of rapid change and also common obstacles. The strongest movement in the Caribbean, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) must know because of his experience there, is


towards identity and nationhood. I hold no brief, either paid or unpaid, for any Prime Minister or any country, Caribbean or otherwise, but I want to try to pour a little oil on the troubled waters.
I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East was becoming aerated or excited about this matter, but it is important to look at it in perspective and with knowledge of the realities of the situation, both in Grenada and in the Caribbean generally.
My reason for intervening is my sincere anxiety that newspapers of the standing of The Guardian and The Times should have seen fit to publish the most extraordinary reports, which caused many of us a great deal of anxiety, about the situation in Grenada. In particular, they published sensational accounts about its Prime Minister. The whole House will welcome the fact that after three days the general strike came to an end and that agreement on many measures was reached between the Prime Minister and the Technical and Allied Workers' Union. But when the time came, although that had happened, there was no report of that in either The Guardian or The Times. That is the kind of thing which concerns me.
We would all welcome and echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) has said about the general principles of the granting of independence to Grenada, subject to the safeguards that he indicated. But what is the source of the propaganda which has been fed to newspapers such as The Guardian and The Times during the last six months, during which time Her Majesty's Government have been considering the whole question of independence? This is a serious and urgent matter. I believe that a small but vociferous group of propagandists is at large in the Caribbean, particularly in the eastern Caribbean, and propagandists who are in the control of those who are not without financial power. I shall come to the general situation shortly, but that minority of persons has created a very effective propaganda machine.

Sir Bernard Braine: If the hon. Gentleman is really asking the question, may I say that the information has come to me from the following bodies: two major unions, the Grenada Civil Service Asso-

ciation and the Grenada Union of Teachers, the Grenada Employers' Federation, the Grenada Medical Association, the Grenada Law Society, the Rotary Club and the Progressive Labour and General Workers' Union. It has come from the whole range of professional, business and commercial organisations in Grenada. I have quoted a telegram from a leading trade union secretary.

Mr. Thomas: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. But that is not directly concerned with the question of independence. It is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, directed at the case of the two men who were detained by the auxiliary police.

Sir Bernard Braine: Three men.

Mr. Thomas: Three men. That does not have a direct bearing upon the views of those organisations about the issue of independence.
These islands, especially the smaller islands in the Caribbean such as Grenada, realise only too well that they cannot completely go it alone. For that reason they have formed economic alliances, through the Caribbean Free Trade Association and the newly formed Caricom—the Caribbean Economic Community and the Common Market. It is against that background that we are debating the order.
It is an important and historical debate when we are granting sovereignty to a country. It is important in the sense that it highlights the problems of Grenada, and Grenada's problems and opportunities reflect those of other countries not only in the eastern Caribbean and the associated States but in the Caribbean community as a whole.

Mr. Ronald Bray: Before the hon. Gentleman moves too widely over the Caribbean associated States in the vicinity, may I ask whether he agrees that we are basically assessing Grenada? Will he also accept that the Prime Minister of Grenada, with whom my right hon. Friend the Minister entered into certain negotiations, was known previously in high office in Grenada six or seven years ago, and had to retreat most rapidly from that office by virtue of certain actions and defalcations in which he was involved? I believe that he was, to use the vernacular, run out of office.

Mr. Thomas: To my knowledge that is not the case. Let me refute it in this way. If the House wishes to look at the matter in perspective I shall give it the facts. In 1951 the Grenada Labour Party won six out of eight seats; in 1954 seven out of eight; in 1957 it won 49 per cent. of the votes cast. In the last 22 years it has lost only one election. In 1967 it won seven out of 10 seats on the independence issue, and in 1972, again on the independence platform, it won 13 out of 15 seats. Those are the facts which the House cannot ignore. Difficulties may have to be overcome but we must first and foremost consider the principle of independence in this country and consider it dispassionately and not in the light of sensational propaganda provided, in my view, by a well-heeled few.
We understand the difficulties and we know the problems. It is a challenge to Grenada to be granted independence but it is a challenge for us, too. It would be morally indefensible and politically imprudent if we were to give the impression to Grenada that we wanted simply to shuffle it off or wash our hands of it. That would be completely the wrong message to go out from this House on an issue such as this. We have a plain and clear duty to assist countries like Grenada as they in their own right join the Commonwealth. The signs are not particularly encouraging. The ODA has agreed to help only to a tune of £100,000. It is crucial in these circumstances, and perhaps for reasons already indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon, that money should come from the right sources. We want no allegations, suggestion or assertions to stand in the way of that.
I have no doubt that over the next 10 years or so Grenada will be making further applications to the ODA for financial help by way of grants and loans. The country needs financial help to boost its tourist industry. It needs it for the building of its new international airport, the plans of which are now being examined. It needs financial and technical aid for the construction of infrastructure, such as roads, and for the development of its agriculture. I hope that the Government and their successors will not shed their responsibilities in these matters, because we have a duty particularly in circumstances of this kind.
The last two General Elections were fought on the independence ticket. My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties about finance and the economic situation. His anxieties were not altogether shared by the Financial Times report on Grenada in 1972, which said:
Grenada's economy has a sound base in a well-diversified agricultural industry and a small light industrial sector. It is in a strong position for economic growth and development. … In the last year they have taken a number of steps to improve the economic situation. They have recently introduced a Development Incentives Ordinance which offers tax and other relief to investors and firms both from inside and outside the island.
A development corporation has been formed to carry out research with a view to providing information of value to those who wish to play their part in introducing new industries and expanding existing industries. To stimulate further hotel development the Grenada Government have introduced an hotel aids ordinance. The situation has been described in black terms, but since 1967 the number of tourists to Grenada has increased by 93 per cent.
Finally, it is not insignificant that since 1967 the Government's annual expenditure rose from 14 million East Caribbean dollars to 36 million East Caribbean dollars in 1972.
On 12th October in the House of Representatives Mr. Gairy made a speech which, in view of the wild allegations that have been made, we should consider carefully. He was at pains to emphasise that the new constitution included provisions to ensure a right to work, a right to privacy, freedom of the Press and freedom of the individual. If that were not the case, I would be the last to support independence for Grenada. As an indication of the Government's intentions and bona fides they appointed a wholly independent commission whose members include Sir Herbet Duffus, the ex-Chief Justice of Jamaica and the Director of Legal Studies of the University of the West Indies——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) went to great lengths to explain that he had not received a brief, but the contents of his speech indicate clearly that he has


received a brief, whether or not he is being paid for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Thomas: I will ignore the hon. Gentleman's last comment which is wholly improper, and I am sure that on reflection he will regret it. If he does not want to know what is being done in Grenada perhaps he had better leave the Chamber. I am simply trying to redress the balance, as allegations have been made. I have a deep affection for the people of Grenada and for that country, which I know quite well, and I am anxious that a balanced picture should be given.
The setting up of the commission is an indication of the Government's bona fides. It has wholly independent, distinguished membership and wide-ranging terms of reference. It will look into all aspects of the cases of the three men whose detention gave rise to the recent troubles, scrutinise the whole question of the administration of justice in Grenada and in due course make recommendations.
Since the Premier returned from the Marlborough House talks, the Government have agreed to several amendments to the constitution as a result of receiving representations from various organisations and people in Grenada. These are the facts. They show a wholly different situation from the one that a small minority has sought to portray.
When Jim Griffiths was Colonial Secretary in the second Labour administration he said:
We regard our trust not only as guides to self-government but as partners in the task of establishing those conditions, economic, social and political, which are the pre-requisite of a virile and successful democracy.
It would ill become us if we failed in that trust. I hope that the United Kingdom Government, the European Community and the United Nations agencies will pledge themselves to help Grenada to bring new life to her people, not only for their sake but to enable Grenada to play its full part in the new, emerging Caribbean.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have serious misgivings about this draft

order and, in particular, about the procedure which the Government have adopted for the purpose of giving independence to Grenada.
When, unfortunately, the experiment of a Federation of the West Indies was found to be a failure, it was seen that our big problem was how to deal with the very small nation States, which were perhaps too small to be viable in the world as sovereign States. One of the solutions propounded, and indeed enacted by the West Indies Act 1967, was this form of associated State status, and that was granted to Grenada. But it is very important to remember that within the constitutions of associated States were provisions with regard to development towards independent status.
Section 10 of the West Indies Act provided for two methods; first, that a State might itself, by amendment of its law, proceed to independent status; and, secondly that Her Majesty, by Order in Council, might terminate the status of association. The difference was very important indeed, because under subsection (1) of Section 10—that is to say, the development of Grenada itself towards independence—it was provided that certain procedures should be followed. Those procedures were laid down in Schedule 2 of the Act, and the most important of them was that the State concerned should obtain a two-thirds vote of approval in a referendum on independence.
The Government have not adopted that method for the moving to independence of Grenada. What they have done, in a situation where, if the island State wanted independence, they should comply with a certain procedure, or, if Britain wanted it for Grenada, they might proceed unilaterally, is to say "Britain wants it. Britain wants to give independence to Grenada." The Government are not really saying that this is being done at the request of the Grenadine State, because if the Grenadine State wanted this development it could itself have obtained it under the Act. So why does Britain have to take the initiative in throwing off the allegiance of these people who have been Her Majesty's subjects for more than 200 years?
The answer that I have been given by my right hon. Friend is that those


procedures laid down by the Act exist only to meet occasions when it is necessary for a State to obtain independence against the will of Britain. So written into a British Act is a provision whereby independence might be obtained despite our wishes. That may be so. It certainly does not appear to have been expressed in the Act, nor does one understand from what one has read that it was the purpose or the spirit of the Act. One is, therefore, bound to say that it seems contrary to the spirit of the age and to our imperial traditions to cast away the preferred allegiance of so many of Her Majesty's subjects unilaterally and without even requiring ally and without even requiring——

Lord Balniel: Will my hon. Friend consider this point? Does he really think that an associated State, whose constitution goes beyond that of a normal colony, should have to go through an obstacle which no normal colony moving towards independence has had to go through? Why should this traditional obstacle to independence be placed in front of an associated State which has greater freedom in its constitution?

Mr. Stanbrook: The reason is that there is represented a special kind of problem. We are talking about a small island with a small population with leaders who are perhaps susceptible to dictatorship tendencies. We laid down a procedure for a type of State which we called an associated State. Such a State has a status in international law which is perhaps without precedent but one which British legal draftsmen were able to devise. It is a State with special status and with special provisions. However, we are not following the provisions which we laid down. Not for 100 years, not since Gladstone, has a British Parliament so wantonly cast away the allegiance of so many of Her Majesty's subjects.

11.5 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The Opposition, and, generally speaking, the House as a whole, have welcomed the movement towards the independence and self-government of colonial subjects. It has been the proud privilege of Parliament to have granted independence over the last quarter of a century to previous dependent territories. The last

observations of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) are contrary, if he will permit me to say so, to responsible opinion. My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the trend towards independence. We would have been much happier if it had been possible to raise questions, to coin a phrase, fullheartedly.
I have had the privilege of enjoying the hospitality of the beautiful island of Grenada. It is about the loveliest island I have ever visited. The people are delightful, friendly and warm. It is a paradise of a place. I have nothing but feelings of good will and affection for its people in the observations which I make.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) has said, it is right that on this occasion of apparently saying farewell we should express concern about the circumstances in which the farewell is being expressed. We do so in the hope that what is said here will be taken seriously in Grenada. There is no doubt that this act of independence is being considered at a time where there is considerable disquiet in Grenada. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) has questioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon on his sources which lead him to suggest that there is disquiet. That is always a difficulty when we are discussing the events of a place thousands of miles away. We must take a certain amount for granted.
The observations which I make are based on conversations which I had in the Central Lobby not more than two or three hours ago with two leading lawyers in Grenada, one of whom—and it does not seem to have done him any great harm—I had the pleasure of proposing for call to the Bar. Both gentlemen are responsible people. One is a senator in Grenada. He has told me that I can mention that fact. They told me of their grave concern and disquiet about what has been going on. There have been complaints and anxious messages to hon. Members from professional associations on the island—for example, the trade unions, the Churches, and the Chamber of Commerce. I do not know whether they are well-heeled, but they are responsible elements. These are the


sources that have been expressing anxieties to us.
It is an excellent thing that now apparently a commission is to be appointed consisting of a chairman and two members, the chairman being no less a person than a former Chief Justice of Jamaica. That is greatly welcome.
What is disturbing is that this state of affairs should come to pass and that these measures have become necessary. The information that I have received from my two informants is that Grenada has been passing through a phase in which the kind of activities for which Haiti's Tonton Macoutes established a certain fame and notoriety have been bedevilling the island for some time. I am appalled to hear these allegations made. It would be even more appalling if they are wholly and absolutely true. That we shall learn in due course from the inquiry.
My information from one of the two gentlemen to whom I have referred is that he saw the bloodstained head and face of one of the two victims of the matters to be investigated. One of the victims was a schoolteacher graduate and the other was a member of the Bar.
We are dealing with serious matters of concern. Therefore, it is the duty of the House of Commons to raise these matters so that, whatever the future may hold, it can at least be said that the Mother of Parliaments raised these matters and asked important questions. We shall be looking upon what happens in the island hereafter with anxious care. Indeed, it may be that we shall be looking upon the island as a place that is entitled to look to us for further assistance, which I trust we shall be able to give.
I am not suggesting any kind of economic blackmail. We would be disregarding our duties if, in the face of the information that I have received, we were to fail to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons and have it reported back, as no doubt it will be, in Grenada itself.
What has happened so far is, technically and constitutionally, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the West Indies Act 1967. There is no doubt that there were two alternative ways in which the status of association could

have been terminated. The first was what I might call the democratic way of indicating that what was about to take place received the support of the majority of the people of Grenada.
One of my hon. Friends asked: why should that obstacle be placed in the way of the grant of independence? It is indeed a curious obstacle. What is sought is some evidence for the world at large that a two-thirds majority of the people of Grenada want independence. It would, at the very least, have been more reassuring to us in the House of Commons if, in the face of the disturbing reports we have had, that had been the way of independence.
It is right to point out that it was not open to the Government to initiate the procedures under Section 10(1). That is perfectly accurate as a statement of the law. But what has come to pass is that the Government have sought the procedures in Section 10(2). I do not think that I should plague the Minister by pressing him too hard to answer the delicate question: why has Section 10(2) been proceeded with? But the House is entitled to know whether, in making the decision, full consideration was given to the state of affairs that has existed in the island in recent months.
I appreciate that this is an area where the Government, for various reasons—I sympathise with their difficulties—hope to find a way of resolving the intricate problems of the West Indies in the way calculated to reach the best solution for the territory. But we are bound to feel a sense of disquiet about the method of dissociation which has been used, and we greatly hope that due warning will be taken of our concern. We shall watch the future carefully.
As an independent State, Grenada will, no doubt, be seeking membership of the United Nations, and it will, no doubt, be seeking continuance as a member of the Commonwealth. In considering its right to enjoy those two aspects of status we shall be watching most carefully hereafter how things go on, in the hope that the warnings that have been uttered on both sides of the House of Commons will be taken very seriously to heart.

11.16 p.m.

Lord Balniel: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think


it would be right that I should intervene briefly to reply to some of the more important questions which have been asked and charges which have been made during the debate.
I think the fact that a number of hon. Members have spoken in the debate is indicative of the very deep interest and, indeed, affection which we in the House have for one of the smallest islands of the Commonwealth. Their speeches of both praise and criticism will undoubtedly be read with care and interest in Grenada because, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said, the Mother of Parliaments has raised certain questions in the debate and the knowledgeable speeches will be considered with great care.
It has put me in some difficulty because I wish to reply briefly. Questions which have been raised, rightly, have revolved around the matter of moving towards independence, about the degree of consultation which has taken place within Grenada, about the future constitution, about the internal situation which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), about the economy of the island and about the prospects of an independent sovereign Grenada. I will try to answer these questions. It is right that hon. Members should be satisfied about the wisdom of assisting the associated State of Grenada on this next step towards full sovereign independence.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South asked why it was decided to grant independence by Order in Council under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 instead of the alternative procedure of Section 10(1), which requires legislation in the local legislature, followed by a referendum.
There were a number of reasons for this. First, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly agreed, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever of our legal right to proceed in this way. Secondly, when the West Indies Act was passed, power was given to the associated States to terminate their association unilaterally; it was open to them to move towards independence under Section 10(1)

without the consent of the United Kingdom. But it was never intended to suggest—I am sure that hon. Members who were in office at the time will confirm this—that association could not be terminated properly by mutual agreement between the two Governments. It was never the intention to put an additional step on the road to independence in the way of an associated State, over and above the normal step which would be taken by a colony. It is by this process of mutual agreement that Grenada is moving to independence.
The other reason is that the Premier, Mr. Gairy, made it clear in his election campaign in February last that, in the event of victory, he intended to seek early independence; and he won an overwhelming victory.
I will try to explain how we have been anxious to secure consultation in Grenada, but, in broad terms, surely it is preferable that this important constitutional step—taken after the General Election, after a constitutional conference and after a unanimous resolution by both Houses in the legislature of Grenada—should be taken by mutual agreement rather than by asking Grenada, which had obtained the constitutional status of an associated State, a greater degree of internal self-government than is ever obtained by a colony, to take an additional step over and above taking the normal road to independence of a colony.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South referred to alleged irregularities in the 1972 election. A British representative was present in Grenada at the time of the 1972 General Election. He reported that it was fairly held and was as well organised as could reasonably be expected in the general circumstances of the Caribbean. I am advised that there were no petitions against the election procedures.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the question of consultation. Hon. Members have asked about the degree of public support for the move to independence and whether the people were properly consulted. The Prime Minister, Mr. Gairy, won the election on the issue of independence; he won 13 out of the 15 seats. Grenada's wish to terminate its association with this country was emphasised by the unanimous


resolutions passed by both Houses in October this year.

Mr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there were abstentions rather than a clear vote?

Lord Balniel: There might well have been an abstention, but, in fact, there was a unanimous vote. There was no vote cast against the proposal to terminate the association with this country. The draft Order in Council embodying the new constitution had been available to their legislature as from 24th August.
But consultation and debate has not been confined to the legislature. One hundred copies of the constitution were distributed to interested organisations by 25th September, and a further 150 were made available for distribution on 26th September. More than 50 organisations were sent copies of the new constitution. The Grenada Government authorised the Chamber of Commerce to print an additional 1,000 copies for sale so as to assist the public in its understanding of the situation. In addition, the Grenada Solicitor-General began in the last week of September a regular series of broadcasts on Radio Grenada in which he analysed the new draft constitution and compared it with existing ones. As a result of that public consultation, 27 amendments to the draft order which were proposed by various organisations were accepted by the Grenada Government. Then the unanimous resolution was passed in both Houses.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon quoted what Prime Minister Gairy said in his speech about the importance of human rights. Such rights for individuals and minorities are firmly incorporated in the independence constitution, as they are in the exsting constitution.
I must refer briefly to the internal situation, which was raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. I must emphasise that we have had no responsibility whatsoever for the internal affairs of Grenada since 1967.
I understand that on 4th November a public meeting was held by the New Jewel Movement—Jewel stands for Joint Endeavour for Welfare Education and Liberation. But that is not the official

Opposition in Grenada. The official Opposition is the National Party, which is led by Mr. Blaize. He is now the only participating member of the Opposition. There is nothing wrong in being in a minority of one, but that is what he is.
At the meeting to which I am referring held by Jewel, the Premier, Mr. Gairy, was called upon to resign or face a general strike. The strike was not widely supported, but on 18th November six leaders of the New Jewel Movement were arrested for illegal possession of arms and for obstructing the police, and it was about that time that in Grenada various allegations were made about brutality by the police. The six men who were arrested were later released on bail. In response to public opinion, the Premier announced that a commission of inquiry would be appointed and the police aides disbanded.
After meetings in November, representatives of various organisations issued statements that they would advise their members to withdraw their labour and services until certain measures were implemented. That was followed by some strike action, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that the strike was a protest against the granting of independence to Grenada. Indeed, that would not be the objective of the New Jewel Movement, and the House will be glad to know that the latest reports indicate that the situation has greatly improved. The strike was called off on 30th November.
It is important to note—this was referred to in the debate—that Mr. Gairy has appointed a commission of inquiry which will have wide terms of reference, and the status and calibre of those who have been appointed is a guarantee of its independence. The chairman of the commission will be Sir Herbet Duffus, a former Chief Justice of Jamaica, and Mr. Aubrey Fraser, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Most Rev. Samuel Carter, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kingston, Jamaica, have also agreed to serve. I emphasise that the personal integrity and standing of those members cannot be questioned. They are of the highest calibre, and the commission expects to begin its hearings very shortly.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the economic and general political situation in Grenada. I find it impossible, as I think the House must, to predict the future but, in general, one can say that if the people work together, if they can build up a sense of national cohesion, if people of all political persuasions are encouraged to play a full rôle in the nation's life, then the prospects are reasonably good for Grenada. I think that the questions that have been asked and the points that have been made in this debate will be read with the greatest of care in Grenada.
The care, interest and affection shown by Members of this House dates back—it will most certainly continue into the future—to 1763, when the Treaty of Paris ceded the island to the British Crown. The link between us has continued ever since, and, although our constitutional links will now end, hon. Members of this House will continue to maintain a friendly and close interest in the island in the years ahead.
Grenada is the most southerly of the Windward Islands. We wish here a fair wind and her people a contented future as they move on towards independence.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: I shall be brief, but I seek the indulgence of the House to express an outlook which I believe is widely held amongst the electorate but has not been mentioned in the speeches tonight.
Time and again this House has heard this kind of "graduation ceremony" which has resulted in chaos, mayhem, disaster and bankruptcy in almost every part of the world in respect of which it has been carried out. It is my contention that we are being premature in granting this independence and expressing pious hopes such as we have heard this evening.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SHIPPING SERVICES)

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and David MacBrayne Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
The reason for the draft undertaking with David MacBrayne Ltd. for which I seek approval tonight is that the existing agreement with MacBrayne's, by a strange coincidence, was approved by this House exactly 12 years ago, on 11th December 1961, and it was designed for circumstances quite different from those of today. At that time MacBrayne's was a company partly in private and partly in public ownership; at that time it operated shipping services, road haulage and bus services in and to the Western Isles and West Highlands.
The company with which it is now proposed to make an undertaking is a wholly owned subsidiary of Scotland's nationalised transport industry, the Scottish Transport Group. It is engaged solely in the provision of shipping services subsidised by the Secretary of State. The shipping services of the group which are not covered by this undertaking are fully commercial and are operated by a separate company, Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., and pay their own way entirely. The services that we are discussing this evening are only those being subsidised; we are not discussing the majority of services in the Western Isles, which are operated by Caledonian MacBrayne and which pay their own way without subsidy.
The new undertaking is designed to meet other new circumstances also. On 18th April 1972 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) his policy for the modernisation and improvement of shipping services to the Scottish islands. The new undertaking aims to give effect to that policy as it applies to the services to those islands which, in general, are too small, or too remote, or too sparsely populated to have a service which can


be expected to pay its own way. The policy stated that new arrangements would be introduced to provide for the improvement of services, and for capital grant and for revenue grant fixed in advance for individual loss-making services.
All the main services to the major islands are operated purely on a commercial basis. Those services to which the undertaking now in force applies and which it is intended should receive support from the Secretary of State under the new undertaking are the minor vehicle ferry service between Scalpay and Kyles of Scalpay in Harris; the services between Oban and Lismore; between Tobermory and Mingary; from Oban to Coll and Tiree; from Mallaig to the Small Isles; from Mallaig to Kyle of Lochalsh. Portree and Raasay: from Oban to Colonsay; the minor ferries to Iona and Eriskay and the cargo service from Glasgow to the Outer Isles and Stornoway. In addition, a temporary freight service to Gigha is subsidised under the undertaking.
It is the intention, as my right hon. Friend said last year, that those of the services which are "local and minor" should in time become the responsibility of the local authorities with the assistance of Government grant in approved cases under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968. Under these arrangements, Inverness County Council intends to assume responsibility for Raasay to provide a new vehicle ferry service there, once the necessary procedures have been completed. Argyll County Council is taking similar action over Lismore and Gigha.
Government assistance to MacBrayne's services to the Western Isles goes back as far as 1928. Until now, the operating subsidy has been based on a retrospective calculation of the overall deficit incurred in operating the services. There was no provision for a capital grant for the subsidised services, and this led to the arrangement, since terminated, by which the Secretary of State built and owned ships which he chartered for operation by MacBrayne's.
Our review of shipping policy to the islands led us to the general conclusion that the overall deficit method of subsidy did not provide sufficient incentive for efficient operation and for innovation

and modernisation. In particular, the existing undertaking had the following main disadvantages.
First, the grant arrangements, contrary to what was hoped when they were introduced, did not sufficiently encourage the company to improve its efficiency, because the services were lumped together and because at least half of any profit was liable to be "clawed back" by the Secretary of State, and at least half of any deficit could be recovered from the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the grant arrangements based upon the overall deficit did not enable an assessment to be made of the cost to the company of each approved service. This meant that the Secretary of State could not possibly know whether the expenditure on each route was receiving a proper return in service provided to the public.
Thirdly, the terms and conditions involved the Secretary of State in decisions on detailed operational matters.
Lastly, the grant was related to revenue losses and did not take adequate account of capital expenditure. The undertaking tended, therefore, not to give sufficient encouragement for the modernisation of services.
The new undertaking which we are discussing tonight provides: first, for advances to be made in respect of individually approved services rather than approved services in the aggregate; secondly, that the amount of the revenue grant payable in respect of any service is to be the deficit which it is estimated the company is likely to incur over a certain determined period in providing that service, irrespective of whether, in that period, the company actually makes a profit in doing so or incurs an even greater loss, and, lastly, capital grant available for providing or improving an approved facility, which could include either a vessel or a pier.
One change to which I should like to draw attention is that, whilst the new undertaking gives the Secretary of State fairly wide general powers in relation to the subsidised services, it relaxes some of the detailed controls which are in the undertaking now in force. In particular, the Secretary of State is no longer required to approve in detail changes in the charges made to users of the services. A


general control will be exercised through discussion of the company's estimates and revenue and expenditure for the "eligible services" and through the fixing of the revenue grant.
In fixing the revenue grant the Secretary of State will have all the powers and information necessary to obviate any need for the company to raise its charges to a level which would have unacceptable social and economic effects on the residents in the communities served by these services. The aim, as the policy statement said, is that charges on the commercial and the subsidised services should be comparable on a per mile basis after adjustment for distance. The revenue shortfall on the subsidised services will be made up by the Government grant. There should be no apprehension about this change. The Secretary of State will still be able to influence charges in general, and I know that the Scottish Transport Group is very conscious of its public and social obligations. At the present time, of course, the Price and Pay Code is an additional restraint.
I have no need to go through the articles in detail, but I shall be glad to deal later with any particular points that hon. Members wish to raise.
In concluding, I would like to say only that I am sure that the new arrangements will provide a much more satisfactory basis than has existed hitherto for the operation of this comparatively small number of subsidised services. The amount of money that will be spent in 1974–75 is £580,000. This will provide a better basis for the taxpayer, for the Government, for the shipping company and for the people of the islands whom these services will serve.
I commend the undertaking to the House.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I believe that the last time an undertaking under the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960 was debated was in December 1964, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) sought approval for a draft undertaking relating to the North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company Limited.
A great deal has happened since then, as the Minister has pointed out. We have had the 1968 Transport Act, Section 34 of which enables local authorities to subsidise ferry services. We have had the May 1971 Gaskin Report, and, above all, the Secretary of State's own major review of shipping services and charges, to which the hon. Member referred. We should not lose sight of the fact that the most important changes which have taken place since then for the people in the Highlands and Islands are those affecting services, either because services have been withdrawn or because new ones have come into operation.
That brings me to the first of three brief points that I want to make. It may seem a simple platitude, but we should not forget that what matters are the services provided. When we get bogged down in talking about subsidies and what company structure there will be, we should not forget that the only thing which really matters to the local community is whether there is a service, whether it is of reasonable frequency and, above all, whether it is reliable and reasonably priced. Secondly, this draft undertaking is about subsidies. So often when we read the literature, when we look at the Scottish Transport Group's report and at almost anything to do with the subsidising of public transport we come across the idea that there is some virtue in commercial viability. I reject that totally.
In principle, I am in favour of the point of view taken consistently by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, referred to in its bulletin on Highland transport, monthly bulletin No. 4, when it was pointed out that in negotiations with the Government over several years the board had advocated a charging system that put the islands in the same position as distant mainland centres: that is, that sea links should be treated as trunk or principal roads and charges made in the same way.
I make the point to illustrate my belief that we should get rid of the idea that somehow building a road or providing a new harbour or facility is money well spent but there is something undesirable about providing an operating subsidy.
Thirdly, because of the immense importance and significance of oil finds around Scotland there has been, quite naturally, a rise in people's expectations. They expect the revenue which will come from oil to be reflected across the board. I am not referring to the specific issue whereby some developments—for example, the proposed development in Lewis—will lead to greater demand for shipping and air services and thus make them inherently more commercially viable. I am referring to the fact that this important economic activity is to take place and it should mean that the Government are prepared to make more revenue available for better services. It is not just a question of better services being provided to enable us to get the oil out. It is a question of the revenue being used to benefit islands such as Raasay and Berneray.
I turn specifically to the draft undertaking and confine myself to four questions upon it. The first relates to the overall subsidy towards David MacBrayne Limited. It is brought out clearly that David MacBrayne Limited is to be set up with a reduced subsidy, and that estimates of expenditure under the Act show that we are discussing a considerable reduction. The proposed figure for 1972–73 was £814,000. The reduced estimate for 1974–75 is £580,000. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what has led to this reduction? To what extent is it a withdrawal of services? To what extent is it a hiving off of local authorities and using the money from the 1968 Transport Act? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us about the relative size of the capital and revenue grants envisaged under this expenditure in the next year.
My second specific point is that the draft undertaking makes it clear that David MacBrayne Limited will operate only "eligible" services, which is the same as saying services which will require support and which will not be making a profit. What does the hon. Gentleman envisage happening in the future if an eligible service becomes commercially viable? Will it simply be transferred to Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, or shall we have the spectacle of private operators being allowed to take over a service which has been made viable by

the public purse, no doubt as a result of substantial investment encouraged by the capital grants?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little more forthcoming about the Secretary of State's reduced control over the charges. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say there will be a greater degree of flexibility for the operating company to modify charges. I like to think that the Government's overall objective will always be to keep down these charges. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage a situation in which, if there were fairly substantial increases in costs which the company could justify, it could raise these charges at fairly short notice?
It seems a little arbitrary to seek to achieve a situation where, as the hon. Gentleman said, the cost per mile in the subsidised services will be rather similar to the cost per mile in the commercially viable services. How does the hon. Gentleman justify that criterion, which is arbitrary and depends how Caledonian MacBrayne Limited and David MacBrayne Limited are set up?
My fourth point relates to the curious expression used in paragraph 13 of the draft undertaking. It says:
Without the written consent of the Secretary of State, the Company shall not and the Group shall so exercise its control over the Company to ensure that the Company shall not, conduct any transaction (whether or not with the Group or with any of its other subsidiaries) otherwise than on arms length terms.
The phrase "on arms length terms" is a curious one to appear in the draft undertaking. Perhaps the Minister can explain what it means and why it has not been possible to use a more specific way of describing this state of affairs.
The Opposition basically support the Government's new policy as outlined in the reply of April 1972. We naturally want more and better services and more money spent on them. We believe that this should happen because or North Sea oil. We support in principle the Government's emphasis on modernisation and capital improvement. The Government have made quite a thing, justifiably, of the question of encouraging roll-on roll-off vehicle ferries to charge on the basis of vehicle length irrespective of load. We support that in principle. Has


it been achieved, or are the Government still at the stage of encouraging the operators to do it?

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: This is one of the rare occasions when we have a short time in which to debate something of vital importance to a great many of my constituents. My hon. Friend said with some confidence that the new scheme should lead to a more satisfactory basis. It could not conceivably lead to worse than the one we have at the moment.
In my 15 years as Member for Argyll, I have not had on any other subject such a flood of complaints as I have received about these services provided by the Scottish Transport Group, whether it be MacBrayne's or Caledonian MacBrayne's or a combination of the two. It used to be said about the game of shinty that if one could not hit the ball one hit the man, and if one could not hit ball or man one hit the referee. That is the sort of game MacBrayne's ships have been playing for the last 18 months. They have run into each other, into rocks and into piers. They have done everything a responsible shipping services should have been able to avoid.
This may cause some amusement to the House, but it has had a deplorable effect on the whole range of islands these ships serve. It may be due to bad management or to bad luck—that is not for me to decide. It is for the courts of inquiry and the proper procedures in the intervening period. Whether one happens to live on Mull, or Coll, or Tiree, or Colonsay, or Islay, or Gigha or elsewhere, one has had a thoroughly bad service for the last 18 months.
When I suggested to the chairman that it might not be a bad thing to hold a small lunch party in Oban, paying a few people's fares, not to explain why MacBrayne's has made such a total mess of things in the past—let him forget that if he could—but to try to give encouragement that it would try to do better in future, he sent me a letter of staggering complacency. He said that MacBrayne's had carried more passengers than ever before and had consulted admirably with the people before it broke down. This sort of thing is so lamentable that it makes one wish that we could debate it for several hours.
On the day the chairman said MacBrayne's had consulted everyone very well, one of my constituents wrote to tell me that it had not consulted him on something it should have done, and there were another two calls from Mull saying that, having promised to take cattle to the sale last Monday, MacBrayne's had, only on the previous Saturday, said that a vessel was not available and that the farmers must change the whole of their arrangements. MacBrayne's has behaved abominably, and I am certain that no system of the future could be less satisfactory than what we have had over the last 18 months.
It does not surprise me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) says that he sees no virtue in viability. That has been a passionate belief of the Socialist Party for a very long time and, my goodness, when the Socialists come to power they prove it. But there is virtue in encouraging people to try to be viable. If one looks at what has been happening on the west coast of Scotland over the past few years, one sees that the ships which the MacBrayne's of the day, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, have built are unlikely ever to produce a profit. That is what worries me a little.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State has abandoned his power of control of charges to existing areas I listened to the list which he read. In the existing areas, where the service is said to be viable, there is included—if I understood my hon. Friend correctly—both the Island of Islay and the Island of Mull. It is very interesting that the charges to Islay are enormously less than the charges to Mull, though the distance to Mull is much shorter and the service is just as important. The reason is quite simple. In the case of Islay, Western Ferries provides some competition, whereas in the case of Mull there is no competition. Therefore, the company is able to charge a great deal more for that service, to the great detriment of the people on Mull. They feel very strongly that they should not be charged a great deal more for a service than their fellows just a little further south. Naturally, they object very strongly.
If the Secretary of State is abandoning all direct control over this matter, may I be assured that a comparable service


will be charged at the same amount per ton-mile, per passenger-mile or per car-mile, or whichever method is adopted? If not, undoubtedly MacBrayne or Caledonian-MacBrayne, or whatever name it may suffer under at the time, will use its commercial judgment very often not in the best interests of the islanders concerned.
In general, I welcome the scheme. I hope very much that the Scottish Transport Group, instead of patting itself on the back about the number of passengers carried, will go out, as most of us have to do, to the islands to which it is supposed to be giving a reliable and satisfactory service, talk to the people there and hear what they say. These people—not just individuals; the complaints come from Tobermory and from every main user, including the branches of the NFU—are sick of the expensive, incompetent and, frankly, lousy service they are receiving.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I wished to begin my speech by referring to the vessel "Clansman" and the Stomoway—Ullapool ferry, but I do not wish to be ruled out of order.
It is wrong to believe that in the Western Isles the community enjoys subsidised services and makes no contribution to the national Exchequer. In a good year, Harris tweed exports account for £5 million. According to a recent article in the Financial Times, the fishings in the Minch are equal in value to the British fleet's catch off Iceland. From my constituency, we send more students to universities per head of population than are sent by any other part of Britain. We are making a contribution, even in United Kingdom terms, to the Exchequer. We make no apology for the fact that some of the services to the Highlands and Islands have to be subsidised. Even in London, a very wealthy city, the Government, according to an answer given some months ago, heavily subsidise transport. The ferry at Woolwich is subsidised. The Government have paid for flyovers on the road to Heathrow and so on. We therefore make no apology that services to the islands are subsidised in certain cases.
I never thought that I would appear in the rôle as defence counsel for Cale-

donian MacBrayne's, but I would not go so far in my condemnation as the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). However, we have many complaints against the company. The people of Barra are to use the vessel "Iona", which they regard as unsuitable. She is far too small, but would have been excellent on the Gourock-Dunoon run for which I understand she was designed. There are no cabins for overnight sailings, which would be acceptable if the vessel could be depended upon to sail every day. The weekly sailing of the cargo boat from Glasgow has been reduced to every 10 days, and even that schedule is not maintained.
To travel from Tarbert, Harris, to Loch Maddy a passenger has to cross the Minch twice and pay two fares in doing so. We accept that direct sailings are not possible on every occasion that the vessel leaves Tarbert but passengers should have to pay the fare only once. Then there are the appalling costs for various services. A farmer in my constituency bought about £130 of drain tiles for his farm. The transport took about two hours sailing from Uig in Skye to Tarbert, Harris. It cost more than £100. The company would not classify the goods as agricultural implements, though what a farmer would do with drain tiles other than use them on the land I do not know.
I cannot understand the implications of the decision that the new undertaking is for approved services rather than aggregate, so I shall keep my powder dry on that score and the Minister may hear from me at some future date. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about consultation. That has been a sore point for generations in the Highlands and Islands. MacBrayne's makes changes in schedules and in charges and no one knows until about a week beforehand that they are to be imposed. Surely the Under-Secretary can influence the company to consult the local authorities at least to get their views on these proposed changes.
The Scottish Office should look at the Norwegian experience. In Norway, similar services, although not free, are regarded as part of the highway system, and the people in our areas are entitled to expect the application of that principle,


as the Highlands and Islands Development Board has suggested. These services should not be required to be commercially viable. Other factors should be taken into account. This is an area to which the Government would be looking for the resources and finance to bail out what might be a bankrupt economy, and, therefore, we have a claim on the Government's finances to ensure that we have reasonable sea services. The services to the Western Isles should be efficient in operation and reasonable in cost. I welcome the draft undertaking.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the general welcome for the new undertaking, and I hope that it will live up to the expectations which all hon. Members—even my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble)—have expressed.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked why the subsidy had been reduced, if it had been reduced, and what the situation would be about capital and revenue grants. The principle  for the reduction in the subsidy is the reduction in the cost of the conventional cargo service, which has been losing a great deal of money. This is connected with the comment made by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) about the cargo service schedule being changed to once every 10 days. As he says, the service has not been able to keep to the schedule.
The roll-on/roll-off service is a desirable innovation. The previous pattern of cargo services had become uneconomic. Often the ships were taking only a small amount of cargo. It has been possible to save a considerable amount of money by rationalising these services.
In future, revenue grants will be based on the requirements for each service. We have no specific aim either to reduce or to increase the subsidy level. If the need is proved for a subsidy on a particular route, that subsidy will be provided, and there is no ceiling on it. We have no capital grants in mind at present. It will be for David MacBrayne Ltd. to discuss its need with us if and when it wishes to have capital grants.
The undertaking provides for payments to be made for research, but no capital

grants are at present in payment. I was also asked what would happen if a subsidised service covered by the undertaking became viable in future. The intention is that it would move from the subsidy arrangements to ordinary commercial operation and the service would be transferred from David MacBrayne Ltd., which is the company that runs the subsidised services, to Caledonian MacBrayne, the company that runs the commercial services. There is no question of MacBrayne having exclusive rights over any route, or of excluding other operators which may wish to come in on a route.
Charges by footage instead of weight are being introduced on services as they go over to roll-on/roll-off operation. A good number of services will remain on the old tonnage basis, but we hope to move all services on to the footage basis as soon as a full roll-on/roll-off service is provided.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll made several criticisms of the way in which the services affected his constituents. I well appreciate that he has a great many complaints from his constituents. He always raises them with me, and I always do my best, within the proper limits, to investigate them. On normal operational matters it is best to take up complaints directly with the Scottish Transport Group, and I am always prepared to give my right hon. Friend any help I can in that.
My right hon. Friend asked about charges. I give him the assurance for which he particularly asked in regard to the undertaking services. We shall still be able to exercise influence over the level of charges on these services, and it will be our general aim to see that they do not rise above the generality of charges on the other services.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is worried about the concern of some of his constituents about the provision of a boat to take livestock for the Christmas sale in Oban. I have some reasonably good news for him. I understand that the "Bute" called for the livestock in question yesterday. The sale took place successfully today, and 91 cattle and 553 sheep were shipped without any trouble. That may have been due to the fact that he raised the matter.

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend probably does not realise that that was very much less than the number booked, because the "Bute" simply could not take the numbers.

Mr. Younger: I will certaintly take this matter up with the Scottish Transport Group, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising it. There was some difficulty about a certain vessel being available, but at least a vessel was provided.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles asked about consultation on schedules. I can tell him that next summer's timetables have been put to local authorities for comment before publication later this month.
The only other point on which I was asked to comment was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He asked about the words "at arms length" in paragraph 13 of the undertaking. These words are included in order to ensure that any commercial transactions between David MacBrayne Ltd. and Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. are done on a fully commercial basis. For example, if David MacBrayne had to charter a ship from Caledonian MacBrayne because there had been a breakdown, it would be necessary, because of the subsidy operation, for it to be clearly seen that the charter was done on a commercial basis. That is the object of the words, which I hope will meet the need.
I am very glad that the House has welcomed this undertaking, and I hope that it will live up to its obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and David MacBrayne Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (BANK LOANS)

Resolved.
That the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans (Extension of Period) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Walder.]

SOUTH HUMBERSIDE (ROADS)

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I should like to begin my remarks by saying how delighted I am to see the Under-Secretary of State, particularly as he has not been very well, attending this late night debate in very cold circumstances. We have had to sit through Grenada and Scotland in order to get to the vital decisions on Louth.
The problem which my constituents face is well-known by the Under-Secretary because he paid my constituency the great courtesy of visiting it recently and we were able to show him the state of our country roads and the small roads in North Lincolnshire. We were able to point out to him that the roads are not in a very good condition compared with those in other counties, and that we have fewer miles of motorway than any other constituency or county in Great Britain. I am asking the Under-Secretary to get the priorities in the right order.
We are worried in North Lincolnshire and in the area of Humberside that too much is given to the north bank—in particular, to Hull—and too little to the south bank—in particular, to Immingham. Many years ago it was promised that the port of Immingham would be one of the thriving and growing ports. Its record compared with any other port in England is most commendable. There have been fewer strikes and greater productivity in Immingham than in any other port, and in comparison with Hull its record is even more commendable. There have been four times as many strikes, and so four times as many working days lost, in the port of Hull as there have been in the port of Immingham.
I am joined here by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), and we are absolutely in unison on this subject. It is our firm resolve to fight for the south bank. We are not satisfied that we have the same priority as the north bank. If Humberside is to work, the basis on which it will work is if the people of Cleethorpes, Immingham and Grimsby are treated as the equals of the people of Hull. If it is not on that basis, Humberside cannot work. I ask my hon. Friend to remember that whenever decisions are made about Humberside.
Too many people in Yorkshire imagine that the capital of the world is Leeds and that the next most important city in Britain is Hull. It seems that no one has ever heard of Lincolnshire. North Lincolnshire has become part of Humber-side, and it is vitally important that the section on the south bank is treated on equal terms with the section on the north bank.
The particular problem on the south bank is the road system. We are delighted that the bridge contract has been signed, and we are delighted that a start has been made on the bridge. However, it would be a ridiculous situation if we had the most modern bridge in the world but no roads on one side of the bridge. We face the prospect that the bridge will be completed in 1977 and that much of the heavy traffic and many of the people streaming over it for the first time will be streaming over to find country lanes.
My hon. Friend does not have to be told about the terrain. He paid me the courtesy of visiting my constituency and he saw the roads. Therefore, he knows the problem only too well. I bring to his attention one planned road which is a major problem—namely, the Brigg-Riby road. If it is not completed as quickly as possible—I am now told that it is important for it to be completed by the time the bridge is finished—we shall have the farcical situation of a swarm of traffic coming over a brilliantly modern sis-lane bridge and then going on to country lanes.
We all know how long it takes, on leaving London in a motor car, to travel the first five miles to the M1. We know that we can then travel the next 60 miles in exactly the same time. The traffic will be coming over the Humber Bridge at 40–50 miles per hour, and there will then be traffic jams and impossible snarl-ups. It is vitally important that my hon. Friend should leave the Chamber tonight with the realisation that the Brigg-Riby road must be treated as a priority.
We have waited three years just to get the minimum amount of facts. The right hon. Member for Grimsby and I have had what I call "double-letters" asking for the latest position. We spend our lives arranging meetings and sending letters to people to try to find out the

latest position. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to state clearly where we stand and what progress he intends to make.
I realise that it is Government policy to have cut-backs. I understand that in the present economic position the cutbacks will be necessary. However, it would be ridiculous to have a cut-back while a network is being built up. It would be like producing a motor car and giving it only three wheels. Let me leave my hon. Friend in no doubt about what the people on the north bank think. The Director of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association has put on record—I spoke to him tonight on the telephone and asked for his permission to quote in the House what he has said—that the Brigg-Riby road, the A18, is more important than the Humber Bridge. He has said that if the road is not finished there will be a farcical situation. That is a quotation not from a prejudiced hon. Member but from a man whom the Government put in charge to make a decision. We must leave the Under-Secretary in no doubt about the importance of the road network on the south bank.
We on our side of the bank are vigorous and determined people. We should like the opportunity to expand. We have not been given that opportunity. Today all countries rely on communications—on the ability to move quickly and to get to other parts of the world. We in our area are fast snarling up rather than moving out.
This year the Under-Secretary will face 10, 15, or perhaps 20 Adjournment debates. He will leave the Chamber realising that he has completed another at a late hour. I ask him, if he remembers only one thing, to remember that whoever opens that bridge—probably Her Majesty the Queen—it must be possible for someone—we shall be happy to welcome my hon. Friend—to open that road network at the same time.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on the force and eloquence with which he has put forward his argument tonight. I shall be extremely brief, because the hon.


Gentleman has put the points with such clarity and conviction.
I simply want to emphasise the extent of the grave concern that is felt on South Humberside at the present position of the area's roads. This concern, which has nothing to do with party politics, as the debate makes clear, is shared by the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, the local authorities and the chambers of commerce and trade in the area.
I am sure the Under-Secretary realises that we are concerned about the road network east of Brigg—the road network west of Brigg looks as though it will come out fairly satisfactorily—and, in particular, the road from Brigg, the Barnetby Top to Riby crossroads, combined with the Immingham spur. If these roads are not to be completed, as currently looks like, by 1978 extremely serious effects will be felt on South Humberside. We shall be substantially isolated. There will be a modern network of roads from the Humber Bridge west of the South Humberside road network, but not to the east. This will bring considerable risks to our industrial development on South Humberside.
I agree with the hon. Member for Louth, who quoted the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, that these roads are more important to us than the Humber Bridge. Certainly the failure to produce these roads on time, when the Humber Bridge is built, will lead to the most atrocious delays, congestion, inefficiency and, indeed, hazard considering the volume of traffic on these roads.
There is acute anxiety in Grimsby and in Louth. We were given the impression that these roads might be completed simultaneously with the Humber Bridge. That is now a pipe dream. There is no chance of that at all.
We were then given the impression by the Secretary of State that these roads would be completed, hopefully, in 1977 or at least in early 1978. We now hear from our chambers of commerce, following a meeting of the Regional Economic Development Council, that they certainly gained the impression that it was now possible that these roads would not be

completed until 1980, which would mean an interval of three years between the completion of the Humber Bridge and the completion of the South Humberside road network east of Brigg.
I speak as somebody who has loyally supported the Government's policy on the Humberside County against the views of a great number of my own voters and supporters in Grimsby. Nevertheless, we on South Humberside think that we are being shabbily treated over the roads in that area.
I support the hon. Member for Louth in his appeal to the Minister to give us a firm assurance and definite date by which we can expect our South Humberside road network to be completed.

12.25 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) for his kind remarks. It is very useful that the House should from time to time discuss the Government's plans for the transport infrastructure of particular regions and localities. I am, therefore, grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth should have initiated this short but important debate.
My hon. Friend has not only made clear his concern about the economic contribution that an improved communication system can make for South Humberside, but he has been pressing on myself and my right hon. Friends the importance of the contribution that individual road schemes can make to the improvement of the local environment.
I recall with pleasure the visit which I made to Louth earlier this year.
At this particular time discussions about new road schemes may seem rather inappropriate. However, no matter what happens with the present fuel crisis, it is clear that our industry and, indeed, we as individuals will have to face increasing fuel costs, and this makes it even more important that our road system should be as effective and economical in terms of its operational costs as possible.
As a country we have been trying to make up lost time and to provide an effective national main route system. Our motorway network is now developing


and making a useful economic contribution by holding down transport costs. It is also now bringing many of our more remote and sometimes less prosperous regions closer to their markets and opening them up for the development of new industry and tourism. Some localities have been left behind in the development of communications, and the present Government have felt particular concern about the need for improved roads to serve East Anglia and Humberside.
I should like to meet the points made by my hon. Friend and the helpful contribution from the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) by setting out the Government's plans for the development of the road network on South Humberside and the likely timetable for the completion of the schemes within that programme. I stress the word "likely" because, as the House knows, public inquiries and statutory procedures can expand or contract the time of construction, as can the weather.
I should like to draw attention to two of the Government's objectives announced in June 1971 for the development of the strategic trunk road network. One was to promote economic growth by connecting the more remote regions to the network, and the other was to improve the routes to our main ports. Later, in March 1972, we decided to accelerate work to improve routes leading to the main East Coast ports, where our trade with the Common Market was significant and growing. The route to Hull on North Humberside was one such route chosen for acceleration.
At an earlier stage the Government acted to stop the estuary continuing as a barrier to a closer association and development of the two banks of the Humber. The Humber Bridge will extend the hinterland for Hull, Grimsby and Immingham, so that the whole of both the north and south banks will benefit when the bridge opens. I am advised by the Humber Bridge Board that this opening is now planned for 1977.
Our strategic network will provide for parallel connections over the shortest distance for both North and South Humberside. I think hon. Members would have to admit that the M62 and M18/M180 routes will represent a very generous provision, offering particularly high-standard connections to the A1 and

M1 and to the developing east—west links across the country, which have been neglected by all administrations. Our aim is to open these direct routes as soon as possible. This will allow local industry to exploit the opportunities created by the opening of the Humber Bridge and of this improved communication.
I should like shortly to come to the individual schemes within the direct route to Grimsby and Immingham along South Humberside. However, first I ought to indicate why an east-west connection has been preferred to the provision, which has been suggested in some quarters, of a longer new high-standard route across Lincolnshire to join the M1 or Al further to the south. I know that the economic planning councils for both Yorkshire and Humberside and the East Midlands have suggested that the A15 and A46 should be improved as far as Newark. Frankly, I think this would have meant too great a dispersal of the scarce resources within the road programme. We must be concerned to concentrate heavy vehicle traffic on high-standard routes away from our towns, villages and people's homes as far as it is possible. To go back on the priority that we are giving to the M18/M180 route in favour of dispersing traffic between the Al8 and the A15 routes would only inflict the intrusion of heavy vehicles on more people.
The A18 is certainly inadequate at present. Except for stretches of dual carriageway near Grimsby and Scunthorpe, it is a single carriageway route where heavy traffic can soon create bottlenecks. There is congestion particularly at Kedby Bridge, in Scunthorpe itself, in Brigg and in the villages of Great Limber and Melton Ross. Brigg, of course, also has to cope with north-south traffic on the A15. So the M180 from Brigg to Thorne and the improvements in the A18 corridor to the east beyond Brigg to Grimsby will create a good standard spine road through South Humberside. This spine will be connected to the Humber Bridge by another spur road.
Looking now at the individual schemes that make up this network, I confirm the timetable for preparation and construction in so far as I can do so in the light of the constraints I have mentioned. From the Brigg bypass to the Humber


Bridge, a new route will be ready by the time the bridge is open. To the west, the section of the M18 around Thorne is already open to traffic. The links to the M62 should be ready in 1975, and the connection to the A1(M) at Doncaster should be completed in 1977. For the M180 itself, the three sections from Thorne to Brigg bypass should be ready in 1977. This, too, will give a continuous connection from Hull across the bridge to the north-south network at Doncaster and to the M1 east of Sheffield.
The main concern of my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member is about the progress with the M180 scheme from Brigg eastwards. I know they are under very reasonable pressure from the Grimsby Chamber of Commerce and Shipping about this issue. The views of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association have been mentioned. I recognise, too, that improvements of the route beyond Brigg will help the development of local industry. I gather also that the Chamber of Commerce is having a look at employment prospects for the area, and it naturally wants to be assured about the availability of improved road links.
The situation is that our consultants have been examining alternative routes for a new high-standard road to Grimsby. Their report should be available very soon. Until recently, the preferred alternative would have been developed in confidence and a draft order published without public consultation, leaving any planning issues to be resolved by way of a public inquiry.
Now, reflecting the Government's concern to allow local people to have a greater say in the planning of road schemes, we have introduced public participation procedures which will mean that the feasible alternatives for a new route in the A18 corridor to Grimsby will be published for the public and local authorities to express their views. This is in line with the circular which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State issued in July this year. I quite accept that this procedure in itself will mean a little time during which planning work is halted. This is one of the penalties we have to pay. However, I expect that having a well-known and, hopefully, well-supported line for a route

will mean that later objections will be fairly limited. Subject to public reaction which is always important, we hope to have a preferred route selected for the detailed design work to be carried forward by next autumn.
The route should then, if the statutory procedures go as planned—I must enter a caveat here because we cannot anticipate them—be ready for construction in 1977 and ready for use two years later, that is, in 1979. This would be in line with previous undertakings. The completion would be two years after the Humber Bridge opens and not three years, the period which may have been circulating locally. That is the latest information. Depending on public reaction, we may be able to bring forward that time, or, unfortunately, it may have to be extended. Much depends on the reaction that we get in the next year.
Obviously, the planning of the spur road to Immingham must be related to the preferred route for the A18 improvements. However, I can assure hon. Members that no time will be lost in completing this scheme also. I would also like to draw attention to the schemes on the A160 between South Killing-holme and Manby for a dual carriageway improvement; this will soon be completed.
I am convinced that the relative priorities within the South Humberside programme are well balanced. Where the traffic will be heavier—that is, to the west—the schemes will be completed first so that the benefits for the community are maximised.
To sum up, I assure both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that there has been, and there will be, no delay for the trunk road schemes in South Humberside. The value of the schemes in hand from the east of Thorne is well over £50 million, not to mention the cost of the loan for the bridge, and all this money is to be spent before 1980. Rather than engage in the administrative bother and delay of changing the status of roads, we have paid a 100 per cent. grant on some principal road schemes also, as my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman know.
I should point out that when the roads programme for 1974–75 was cut as part of the economies in public expenditure


announced last May, the road schemes in this locality were not affected. None was deferred, and work is proceeding on the preparation for the improvements in the A18 corridor from Brigg towards Grimsby as fast as possible, and from this will follow work on the Immingham spur.
I have been into this myself in considerable detail, and I assure the House that at the moment I see no way of speeding up the timetable for these schemes if we are both to fulfil our statutory obligation to respect the rights of individuals and to allow members of the public the opportunity which they should have—this is something about which I feel strongly—to comment on alternative proposals. Roads are very expensive to build and have a great impact on the local environment, and that is a price that we have to pay—and should be prepared to pay—to ensure that local people, who, after all, will have

to live with these roads for a long time, have a say in the choice of route at the earliest possible stage.
My right hon. Friends and I, and, indeed, my whole Department, are seized of the importance of the new road network that is needed for the South Humberside area. The schemes have all the necessary priorities, and I hope that, because of the dates that I have put forward as realistically as I can tonight, and with the firm assurance that my right hon. Friends and I will be keeping an eye on these schemes because we realise the importance of them once the bridge is open, my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that their areas are far from being neglected but are beginning to share the benefits of first-class road communications.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.